Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Weiss


 * 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. While there are some arguments to keep the article, the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE comments are stronger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  18:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Douglas Weiss

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Per request of subject's representative. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Possibly also deletable as WP:ARTSPAM with WP:COATRACKed sourcing. Per discussion here and Special:permalink/1015119313ce -- Deep fried okra  ( talk ) 18:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I suppose the subject doesn't like the "malpractice" section of the article. That said, this is built almost entirely from primary sources and there is little to indicate this person is actually notable. I much prefer low-profile people trying to have their article deleted than creating one as an advertisement. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LOWPROFILE, the subject is not "low profile", as he has routinely given interviews as an expert to the media and sought out interviews. --Kbabej (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean that in a greatly technical sense, my apologies. I meant his notability isn't spanking obvious; quite the opposite, actually, since interviews about a subject matter of expertise and being sought for an opinion aren't in depth coverage of the person. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 20:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The subject coined the term intimacy anorexia, which has its own article on WP and coverage from Good Morning America here; has book reviews online, including from Palo Alto Online here; and has coverage on another book on ABC here. The subject also isn't eschewing the spotlight; in fact, here he is talking about sex addiction and the Atlanta shooting for USA Today. --Kbabej (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the research by User:Kbabej and arguments compelling. Looks like they meet WP:AUTHOR "The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique." Jeepday (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. I disagree with and  that this "intimacy anorexia" concept justifies a BLP per WP:AUTHOR. Weiss' book on the subject is ten years old, but the term doesn't seem have been adopted in the scientific literature. In fact, the article intimacy anorexia should probably be deleted as well, per WP:1R. I find it particularly weird that the definition of the term cites the official-sounding American Association for Sex Addiction Therapy, which in fact seems to be nothing but a one-man frontend for Weiss's counseling clinic. Back in 2019 I tagged the article with a COI. Both the Douglas Weiss and intimacy anorexia articles were created in large parts by single-purpose accounts, , and , and two Colorado Springs-based IPs  and  (which is where Weiss seems to be located per his website). Except for the "malpractice" section that is, which was added in December 2020 by a Los Angeles-based IP , and which is why the subject himself seems to be requesting deletion now. Long story short: both articles feel a lot like WP:SOAPBOX and should be deleted. And the whole story could be archived as a cautionary tail for WP:FAMOUS. --bender235 (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The term has been covered by Healthline; Good Morning America; and YourTango. Those three publications are notable publications on their own, and there's other coverage out there as well. I think it's covered well enough for the subject to have a page. --Kbabej (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, especially since all three of those sources are directly linked to the subject. --bender235 (talk) 21:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:PROF. First off, a reputable psychologist does not use the term "sex addiction", which is not in the DSM-5; that and other peculiar phrases require a total re-write. Secondly, I don't see how this person passes the professor test: there's nothing that indicates it in the article at all. Finally, writing a book does not guarantee inclusion here -- everybody knows in 2021 that we are not a web host. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2021 (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.