Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doc Love


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 08:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Doc Love

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject. Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Wkharrisjr wrote: Promotional article with no independent, critical review or discussion of the subject.
 * Might it be, that the reason why the English version of Wikipedia has more deletions than other language versions, is because more Americans opt to censor ("edit") than contribute? See Pareto's Law. And it shows that non-English speaking cultures assume good intent in contrast to us. For example I had my article on Abram Kamensky deleted, which exists both in Ukrainian and Russian. My article on Aleksandr Kamensky was also submitted for deletion, but it was kept. This is why I quit contributing to Wikipedia.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel this way. The excerpt below disproves your point of view.

Doc Love's stated interest is to improve relationships between men and women, decrease the nation's divorce rate and gradually quell the 'war between the sexes'.

He criticizes other relationship experts for having no understanding of the concepts of Interest Level and Challenge.

Thomas Hodges borrowed the concept of Interest Level from Looking Out for #1 by the Libertarian Robert Ringer, who also self-published his bestseller Winning Through Intimidation. Thomas Hodges was inspired by Ringer to self-publish his materials.

In contrast to these other relationship experts Doc Love claims to be a true scientist: "I, in contrast and not realizing it at the time that I was a true scientist, tried a different approach: "Please tell me about the men you chose to stay with, who didn't wine you, dine you, and buy you flowers?"" In "Doc Love - The System (Synopsis)" The System is defined by Doc Love in this way: "To you Psych majors, "The System" is the result of a long-term study of the effects of male behavior on the behavior responses of women toward them, with applications for the male via behavior modification". Ironically, after a while, Doc Love began focusing more on empowering himself to control his own male students and impose on them his UNSTATED interests:


 * Libertarians' excessive obsession with "Aristotelian" logic of Ayn Rand makes their systems for love and life impractical. Zadeh's Fuzzy Logic expands the logic of Aristotle, rather than replaces it, just as Einstein's theory of relativity merely compliments Newtonian mechanics where that paradigm lacks explanatory power. Men would be more successful with women if they accept that extreme cases of truth are uncommon in humanities. By claiming that he has a monopoly on truth, Doc Love is ignoring the reality that when it comes to social intelligence, fuzzy logic is closer to the way we arrive at truth.


 * Science aims at understanding causality so control can be exerted. Changing public attitudes about a MALE behaviour may lead to anti-male laws being passed prohibiting that behaviour (social engineering). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Considering that a few years ago a totally fake article was created on Wikipedia by some university students in Virginia we have every reason to want to delete articles that lack adequate sources. This is one such article, sources and verifiability are needed, not blind acceptance of low quality research on non-notable topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * John Pack Lambert, if a Bimbo does not know that leaves are green because of chlorophyll then according to your reasoning Photosynthesis is one such article. Why? Because if you were not ignorant to the fact, that a topic is notable, you would contribute to Wikipedia by finding authoritative sources for it. (When was the last time you did that?) Are there notable topics you never heard of? If you think so, please do some "low quality research" and reverse your verdict. If you truly believe you know everything worthy of note, then I have nothing more to say to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * I have removed Doc Love's official website from external links. I hope this makes it clear that this is an encyclopedia article, and not a commercial promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:1E06:637D:0:3C:3594:5F01 (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep An encyclopedia is for reference. Try to be constructive, instead of removing entries. Peter Andrew Nolan (talk) 10:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Your welcome &#124; Democratics Talk 10:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Remember, folks, AFD is not cleanup. The article clearly needs work, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. We need to look at notability. Withholding my !vote until I have time to determine that, but please, don't vote delete just because the article needs cleanup. I'm also satisfied that the limited sourcing proves that, at the very least, he exists and the article is not a hoax. Now, WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep, but I feel the concerns that this is a hoax are unfounded. Smartyllama (talk) 13:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As I still have been unable to find significant notable coverage in reliable sources and none has been provided by other editors. That is why it should be deleted, not because it is poorly written. If consensus is that Doc Love meets WP:GNG, it should be kept regardless of the current state of the article, which myself and others have attempted to improve. I just don't think he's notable. I stand by my statement that 's concerns about a hoax are unfounded. But WP:ITEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Notability

Doc Love has his own worldwide radio show heard every Wednesday for an hour on Blog Talk Radio.

He has written a popular column on the #1 Men’s website in the world, AskMen.com (featuring dating and relationship advice for guys.)

He has also been featured in countless major media appearances, including

▪ FOX News ▪ Time Magazine ▪ The 9-5-0/Houston ▪ KIIS/Los Angeles

On 22.1.2016 Doc Love was interviewed by Lucia, she has posted the interview on YouTube under the title 《The Art Of Love | Doc Love's THE SYSTEM | The Dating Dictionary | Episode 1

Lucia is a dating/relationship expert specializing in Cougar relationships. She is the author of, Lucia's Lessons of Love, a syndicated columnist, keynote speaker and host of The Art of Love on L.A.Talk Radio.

'''Strong keep"'2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Echoing Smartyllama's comments above - no notable coverage. The person exists, but is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia.  If there's coverage from the media that 2607:FB90:1E0B:E660:0:47:7857:9E01 references, I can't find it.Timtempleton (talk) 20:16, 26 October 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.