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. Tone 15:11, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jason P. Downs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Assistant professor not at a major research university. Does not pass WP:PROF. agtx 22:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Assistant professors are rarely notable, more often associate professors are notable. We would at least need an indication of impact for Downs work and we lack that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as certainly not convincing for both the applicable notabilities of professors and authors, the article contains nothing else to suggest his works have been significant. SwisterTwister talk 23:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing to suggest Downs passes the professor test and I suspect it's an autobiography. WP:TOOSOON. Joe Roe (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tiny GS cites: WP:Too soon. Ineptly written BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Assistant professors usually do not yet have enough impact for notability and this one does not appear to be an exception. Six publications in Google scholar with an h-index of 4 is, as Xxanthippe says, too soon for WP:PROF#C1, and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, article is effectively a résumé and apparently also self-authored. Blythwood (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. He has had some mentions in excellent sources for his work on a missing link, but probably not enough to pass the PROF test. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2016 (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.