Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John DenBoer


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

John DenBoer

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I do not think that either WP:BIO or WP:PROF are met. The only reliable source cited in the current article that provides biographical information is this in Newsweek. This from the Phoenix Business Journal has some information about his company, but little biographical content. The rest are unreliable e.g. WP:FORBESCON or primary. I have searched myself but not been able to find any better sources. SmartSE (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong KEEP - There is enough coverage about subject to meet WP:GNG. VentureBeat is reliable source. There are also coverage on medical related sites with The NewsWeek, The Forbes and VentureBeat.--Ehtsham Tariq (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC) — Ehtsham Tariq (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Psychology.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. DenBoer is of marginal notability and the article will be a BLP nightmare because he has surrendered his license. Jahaza (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. A sensible alternative to deletion might be a redirect to a stub on This is Dementia.  In addition to the Newsweek piece, there is a similar piece in Marketwatch . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:23, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've considered that but there are two issues with doing that. First, those sources are extremely un-critical to the extent that they are potentially unreliable. Marketwatch calls him a clinical psychologist when as has demonstrated that they cannot call themselves that. If they didn't manage to check such a basic fact, it isn't very encouraging. Newsweek is better, but is still mainly just an unquestioning interview. Second, even if we did create an article on the documentary, it would be extremely short, as there would be no MEDRS-compliant information that could be included. SmartSE (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I agree it's marginal for WP:NBOOK, and that any stub would need to be quite short. I unfortunately did not find any other reviews/similar.  As far as the narrow issue of the Marketwatch piece and the psychologist title: it appears that he lost his psychologist license at the end of 2020 (after a probationary period starting in late 2018); the interview was in early 2019.  So I don't think this is a red flag; I don't see any other red flags apart from the piece being mainly an interview.  I believe Marketwatch to be generally reliable, although it is not discussed by WP:RSP. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ahh I thought you were talking about the documentary rather than the book. As far as I can see neither of those sources make any reference to the book. It is self-published and when I searched for reviews I couldn't find any. SmartSE (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Doh! I did mean the documentary, and shouldn't have referred to NBOOK.  The WP:NFILM is fairly similar to NBOOK (though with some important differences, such as the emphasis on national film critics).  It is not clear that NFILM is quite the right standard for a Netflix documentary (which I think also bears some features of television), but WP:NTV is only an essay.  However: we have in any case only two marginal-to-very-marginal sources, and I am now convinced that it is not enough for an article on the documentary. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I see some progress towards notability, I think it is WP:TOOSOON at best.  The sources  in the article at the time of AfD nomination were mostly refbombing.  The BLP issues regarding the loss of license are not a reason to delete, but are certainly not a reason to keep.  The case for an article on the documentary is a little stronger, but this still appears to fall short. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2022 (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.