Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark J. Blechner

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 10:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark J. Blechner[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a collection of article BY the person in question not ABOUT the person in question. Also appears to be a significant COI. I see only two passing mentions on Google news about this person. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete GS h-index of 20 rather marginal in a high cited field like pop-pschology. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet the GNG. Sources are primarily by him, not about him.Sandals1 (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - his research is both interesting and current (I saw a short documentary just last night that commented on the fact that many people can't hear differences in minor versus major chords). However, this article is about the subject of his research, and there's little about him. That would earn a redirect at best. There are some poetential sources out there. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Xxan already said, citations too low in a high-citation area to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and not enough independent press coverage of him to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.