Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity doctor


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  10:45, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Celebrity doctor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The genesis of this article is a sort of op-ed from the LA Times, 2010, reference #2. Call the title a catchphrase or concept. The author then gathers a group of articles around this concept, to bolster it. While the articles are mostly reliable sources, what holds everything together is the author tying them to the phrase/concept fr/ the LA Times. The is classic original research and soapboxing. As such it needs to be deleted. Tapered (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I need to amend my original statement. The worst thing about this article is the relationship between title and content. The content is overwhelmingly negative. By grouping all the negative information under the title celebrity doctor, it implies that all doctors who are celebrities are charlatans. Any well-known physician, whether charlatan or saint, could be linked to and associated with this page. If the author is willing to change the title to something less susceptible, I'd be happy to let the matter drop. Otherwise, I believe I've made the AfD nomination stronger. Tapered (talk) 10:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is addressed to any Administrator who might close this discussion. User:Jytdog created the article on | 14 Sept. On 15 Sept, without showing any references to demonstrate the fact (and no mention of Dr. Sears in the touchstone "Celebrity doctor" article), he | changed the primary description of Dr. Robert Sears in the his biography lead,from pediatrician to...Celebrity doctor! When his edit was politely reverted for lack of references, he | re-reverted, claiming that it was already referenced (without citing the ref), and that it wasn't necessary in the lead section, anyway. (References? We ain't got no references. We don't need no references. I don't have to show you any stinking references.) This shows how the title of the article can be used for all sorts of POV editing, and assorted 'label and categorize' intellectual dishonesty. If you close the article with any sort of keep, and I don't see how you can avoid it, please use your position as an Admin boldly, and change the title to stop more bad editing—like Jytdog's—before it can start. I hope this has given you enough 'cover' to do it. My title suggestions are "Health care professionals in broadcasting," or "Doctors and psychologists in broadcasting." Thank you for your time and attention. Tapered (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Tapered, When I added back "celebrity doctor" in this dif - the one you cite I added the Esquivel ref that directly supports the term, and this addressed the problem identified in the edit note, "unsourced", with which the term had been removed.  Look again and then please redact your statement, which misrepresents what happened.  This is all irrelevant to the AfD of course.  Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an unbecoming and irrelevant personal attack - quite apart from it being completely factually incorrect, per Jytdog's diffs - and does nothing for your case; I urge you to strike it - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was wrong about the correction, and I apologize. I'm striking it. However, the first insertion was totally unreferenced, and the Esquivel reference in no way cites Sears as a "celebrity doctor." I stand by everything else. The edit was bad, and I've made the point forcefully and unequivocally. The article will never be deleted, and I've showing any Admin looking it over an example of how easily the title can be misused/abused. And an afterthought: if it's a good article, the names I've proposed—or similar names—can't possibly hurt it. Can they? Tapered (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Esquivel source doesn't use the exact phrase "celebrity doctor" but it describes him twice as a "celebrity" and very much because of his public advocacy as a doctor. Whether the "celebrity doctor" label is suitable for Sears is debatable  in good faith but your claim that the label is not supported by the ref is again just inaccurate. See Law of holes. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Two uses of the word "celebrity" in an article is fine for the standards of popular media to label him a celebrity doctor. To use the label to link to an article @ Wikipedia—insufficient IMO, and hopefully for most editors outside the bounds of the medical science grouping. "Such and such an author describes someone as a celebrity doctor"—fine—but what you did to the Sears article, and what others can do in the future = POV editing. Tapered (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you do not understand how inappropriate this subthread is for an AfD. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * keep (I created of the article)  I think Tapered didn't read very carefully and seems to have become all alarmed for little reason.  The phrase is used many times in strong sources. To name a few  - the Cult of celebrity doctors LA Times piece from 2010 Tapered mentions,, the Think Progress piece, this very recent NPR piece with the hook of Trump's recent visit to Dr Oz, etc. ("NPR's Ari Shapiro talks with W. Douglas Evans, director of the Public Health Communication and Marketing Program at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, about the role that celebrity doctors play, and why Dr. Oz has such a loyal following despite the controversy surrounding him.")  We are having some interesting discussions about defining the boundaries of this thing, but it is a thing.  The nomination is without merit in my view, but we'll see what the community has to say. Jytdog (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Concept is widely discussed (often using the exact term "Celebrity Doctor") in a variety of good RS, so this is an obviously notable topic for the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Tough one. The concept does not seem to be defined anywhere, but it is not a wiki-only neologism, it is used in some news pieces, as well as a (very) few academic works (see hits on GScholar). I concur with the creator that it is "a thing". Things to consider - is the concept notable? And can we use Wikipedia to define it? Or is it WP:OR as User:Tapered suggested? Given the amount of coverage of this in non-academic but still somewhat reliable media, I think it is notable, so the final question to answer is whether this article is OR or not, and of that I am not sure. In the end, I am going with weak keep due to WP:IAR - it is a notable concept, and the definition is in line with WP:COMMONSENSE. In other words, I am saying that IMHO OR should not prevent us from starting articles on concepts that have not been clearly defined anywhere else, as long as such concepts are notable, but I am certainly open to further discussion. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep While most of the refs are to issues with specific (or mention) celebrity doctors, rather than about 'celebrity doctors' as a concept, there are at least 2 that are specifically about the group rather than a particular example. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all above - David Gerard (talk) 08:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The article covers several topics, while articles should cover one topic per "Disambiguation".  Celebrity doctors can be public intellectuals, famous because of their prominence in their fields, or doctors with talk shows or doctors who administer to celebrities.  I do not think it is helpful to say that doctors on TV often provide poor advice, when Dr. Sanjay Gupta seems to be in a differnt category from the talk show hosts.  (The main criticism he has attracted relates to his views on health care provision, rather than medical science.)  Furthermore, the topic lacks notability.  No reliable sources cover it, only op-eds which are only reliable for the opinions of their writers.  Also, this appears to be a revenge article created by Jytdog.  He is upset that Dr. Phil and other media doctors have weighed into the dispute about Hillary Clinton's health, while representing that her main challenger, Donald Trump, is in perfect health.  Raise that issue in the respective articles, don't create an article to discredit everyone who happens to be a doctor and appears on TV.  TFD (talk) 10:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's ugly, and a lie. fwiw I actually started thinking about this category in the course of my work on fad diets, many of which are put out there by "doctors plying their trade in the media" Jytdog (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In the course of your work on fad diet you have never bothered to mention why they lead to rapid weight loss, do not work long term and can lead to health disorders. Instead of the science, the article focuses on naming and shaming:  "Celebrity endorsements are frequently associated with fad diets, and the individuals who develop and promote these programs often profit handsomely."   TFD (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The generalization is not sustainable across my work on fad diets, and you have not struck your lie. Whatever, more diffs for future potential action if this continues. Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unhelpful to accuse other people of lying. Has it never occurred to you that other people may just have differences of opinion or even mistaken?  Anyway, I was looking at the "Fad diet" article you provided a link for.  I note that you have been editing the article for over 18 months but only created "Celebrity doctors" the day after Dr. Phil announced Trump would be on his show.  TFD (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You made a statement of fact in this dif and followed it up with another in this dif. (collecting diffs now) Neither framed as opinions and importantly, neither relevant to a policy-driven deletion discussion.  I am not responding further. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some discussion of the exact parameters for inclusion, but ultimately this is clearly a notable topic with ample support in reliable independnet sources. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Guy and Alexbrn. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is possibly the most strange and worrying development I've noticed on Wiki. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, but one individual's essay, filled with original research, questionable judgments and plain opinion. It has a sort of Orwellian quality, too, by which anonymous information controllers seek to empower themselves to define meanings, create entities and arbitrate on reputation. Meanwhile, all the weasel words 'may be' and so forth are used to pursue agenda, for instance suggesting that there is some particular proclivity toward COIs among such people. This article brings nothing together from the store of human knowledge, but essentially seeks to define and create an entity. On the criteria used, josef mengele was a celebrity doctor, and ought to be included if this page stays up. Dallas66 (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep advocates have a very good case. However I'm going to go with WP's policy for "neutral point of view."  I don't think we would have an article on "Crooked politician"  or "Sports cheater" or whatever. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also note that a positive news report on a well-known doctor would not call him or her a celebrity.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question Do we have an article on TV medical talk shows? Thoughtmonkey (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There are separate articles on The Dr. Oz Show (as well as one on Mehmet Oz), The Doctors (talk show) (as well as Travis Lane Stork, Andrew P. Ordon, Jennifer Berman, and Jennifer Ashton); Dr. Drew On Call and Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew etc as well as Drew Pinsky, Dr. Phil (TV series) (and Phil McGraw) ... bunch of individual articles. Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'll admit that I'm a little worried about some of the issues raised here, but, in the end, the concept is notable.  There does seem to be a connotation to the term that makes it vaguely critical if not pejorative, but, from reading the sources, this is not Wikipedia's fault. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doing a search here, I find many references to the concept, including the Los Angeles Times, Medical jobs, and dozens of others.  It is not a complete neologism.  That said, the tone of the article is problematic, and if the article creator applied his own standards of sourcing and reliability to this work, it would probably be chopped to a stub.   Montanabw (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Medical talk show might be an option. All of the criticisms could still be there, but along with neutral history of the phenomenon.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I could support that, but it's more of a decision for the talk page. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, that leaves out a lot of stuff. Celebrity doctors don't only do their thing on TV.  The core definition is a medical professional who plies their trade in the media (TV, websites/social media, radio, books, etc). Ruth Westheimer was a celebrity doctor for example, and she did a lot of her work on radio and in books. Jytdog (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk show includes radio as well as TV.Thoughtmonkey (talk) 15:12, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * keep the article is informative (using WP RS), and notable...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Excellent discussion so far...except for "lie." However, out of all the comments and recommendations, only 2 of the 3 'delete' recommendations have directly addressed the reasons given for deletion: contravention of the guidelines against original research, and soapboxing. One of the 'deletes' correctly added that the title is implied POV advocacy, and another has added a description of the article as an essay, which dovetails with OR and soapboxing. All the positive qualities of the article cited by the 'keepers' can be, and sometimes are, characteristics of OR/POV articles. Please refute the original assertions, if you can, with reasoned statements. Tapered (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is a confusion here for some editors. Nobody could dispute that there are sources describing individuals as celebrity doctors. The issue here is the creation of an encyclopedia entry. What would you think, eg, for an entry on Fat Russians', with an anonymously created definition of fat Russians, with say a few named individuals said to be fat Russians? You don't need to be told by an encyclopedia - especially one with too many pages to work on and monitor already - what a fat Russian is. Nor does anyone who can speak English to moderate standards need to be told, much less given an anonymous point of view, on what a celebrity doctor is. It is a doctor who is also a celebrity. More than that is POV conjecture and opinion. Dallas66 (talk) 07:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your comparison of "fat Russians" ignores the point, backed by the sources, that "celebrity doctor" is actually a term in itself, as strongly evidenced by the RSes already in the article, which is why I opined "keep" - this isn't just a local neologism or descriptive adjective-noun combination, it's a term that's clearly in currency, in serious discussion of the concept and the problems with it, i.e. it's encyclopedic - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dallas66 (and others): your erudition is wonderful, but for Pete's sakes,if you don't tie it to categories from What Wikipedia is Not, or Made Up Stuff, or especially from the rationale at the top of the page, you don't give the Admins anything to hang their hats on. This ain't primarily an intellectual debate, it's a discussion/debate for/against deletion. Please write accordingly. Tapered (talk) 11:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is another example of an AfD on a topic that is notable but very poorly written. I've been saying for quite some time that it is a mistake to conflate quality with notability—they are independent of one another.  (That's in WP:N or its guidelines somewhere, I'm not going to go dig it up, someone else can locate the cite).  Clearly, the article needs massive cleanup and has significant POV issues.  But the concept passes GNG.  It might have to have content nuked to a stub and the whole thing rewritten, but  is correct; the concept is a real one, not a made-up phrase unique to wikipedia, and as such is notable.  Passes GNG, more than adequate indicia of notability.  Montanabw (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - right now I'm leaning towards delete per WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The article in it's present state doesn't offer a reasonable or neutral perspective, there's no history given on the early pioneers like Benjamin Spock, Ruth Westheimer, Joyce Brothers. The lead sentence which gives a definition cherry-picked from a reliable source completely leaves out the genre of radio talk shows (it could be reasonably argued that this genre was the catalyst) and their whole roster of media personalities like Laura Schlessinger, Judy Kuriansky, Dr. Bob Martin, Dr. Michelle Cohen, Pinsky actually got his start in radio. It doesn't offer an international perspective, Australian celebrity doctor, Tokyo court gives celebrity doctor..., Celebrity doctor’s clinic closed..., Celebrity doctor Joel Mendez, Pixie McKenna. I do think it is a notable topic, but it is currently written with a biased point of view to seemingly "discredit everyone who happens to be a doctor and appears on (American) TV". -- Isaidnoway  (talk)  17:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added some content dealing with the past and transitioning to the current state of things, and mentioning radio. Thanks too for the links to the phenomenon in other countries... added that too. Didn't use the ref about Manuel “Manny” Calayan and Rosario “Pie” Cabrera-Calayan as that does not appear to be an RS. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Update to Keep in light of recent improvements.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  17:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep ya it is pop culture but lots of coverage from many different sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Keep arguments above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I was surprised to find this was a brand new draft a week or so ago; I've seen the term used so many damn times in the media that I just assumed WP already had an article on it. None of the delete arguments I've seen here make any sense at all. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite clearly notable. Meets WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Germane, notable subject with more than sufficient referencing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.