Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel L. Young


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Joel L. Young

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article filled with minutiae and non-independent sources. Subject fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. Note, if you disagree, please specify which specific, numbered, criteria under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR you think make the subject notable. Thank you. Logical Cowboy (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep based on WP:AUTHOR #3, multiple book reviews in reliable sources.
 * Adams, Angel. "ADHD Grown Up. A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD by Joel Young". Journal of Family Therapy, Vol. 30, No. 1, February 2008
 * "ADHD grown up; a guide to adolescent and adult ADHD", SciTech Book News, Vol. 31, No. 2, June 2007
 * Sickel. "ADHD Grown Up: A Guide to Adolescent and Adult ADHD", Psychiatric Services January 1, 2008; Vol 59, No. 1; doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.59.1.123
 * Diana Pederson. "Review - ADHD Grown Up", Metapsychology, January 8, 2008; Volume 12, Issue 2
 * McCabe, Marcia. "Why don't you grow up?" PsycCRITIQUES, Vol 52(46), 2007
 * --Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tiny cites in a highly cited field (biomed). A handful of reviews. Does not cross the high bar in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC).
 * "many books are published each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. As pointed out by Green Cardamon, this person appears to meet the threshold of notability. However, the article is promotional and non-neutral. My !vote is weak, and I am open to a good argument to the contrary. The COI is highly disturbing, however, I don't believe that COI alone is a proper reason for deletion. Changing to Delete. Convinced by subsequent arguments. This one is too much of a disaster to be salvaged. Coretheapple (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete He might just be notable as WP:A?UTHOR, but the article is so promotional that the only practical thing is to start over. The combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion--we have enough to do improving the   articles on really important subjects, rather than by rewriting these to make them acceptable/ . DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A point that is applicable outside BLPs too. Wikipedia has developed to a high degree of maturity and there is plenty of good material in its several million articles. There is now not the need for editors to devote large amounts of esoteric research to bringing articles about insignificant topics up to par. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC).


 * Weak delete unless someone cares enough to clear the promotional material and write a properly neutral article about the subject before the close of the AfD (I certainly don't) and then continue policing it for recurring COI problems afterwards. Borderline G11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete as per WP:BLOWITUP, DGG and WP:ADVERT .This article is clearly a paid advertisement and promotion for his work with the biography acting as nothing but a WP:COATRACK done by a  paid editor across sock accounts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Wow! Rarely seen such an article. Professionally done, I have to admit. If you don't look closer, you might actually think that this guy is a giant in his field. We should keep this gem somewhere, as it is a beautiful example of what paid advocacy editing can mean for WP! Dr. Young, unfortunately, doesn't even come close to meeting WP:ACADEMIC. As noted above, he might squeak by on WP:AUTHOR, but this article is an irredeemable load of spam, spam, with spam (indeed borderline G11, as David Eppstein said). --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above. As far as his professional qualifications, he appears to be a run-of-the-mill psychiatrist who has given his practice a fancy name to make it sound like an important "behavioral center". As far as WP:ACADEMIC goes he doesn't come close. As far as WP:AUTHOR goes, aside from Psychiatric Services I am not impressed with the journals/magazines that chose to review his book; it doesn't exactly sound like it has rocked the field or flown off the shelves. It was put out by a mainstream publisher, but I don't feel it has made him notable as WP defines it. --MelanieN (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2013 (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.