Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Diamond (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. Opinion split between "keep" and "redirect". (non-admin closure) feminist 01:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Diamond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A plastic surgeon that generates a lot of publicity due to prior participation in a TV show. Two AfDs closed as no consensus.

I've reviewed the sources presented at the AfD and I do not find the coverage substantial to warrant an encyclopedia entry. Many are based on self-promotional interviews, as in:

• ""For that week, I literally had people waiting until 2am for a consultation. The waiting room was filled 20 people-deep all day long," he recalls."

I believe it's a good time to revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability does not go away with time. Two previous AFDs left it as a keep, so a third is not needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note -- both the 2014 & 2016 AfDs closed as "No consensus", not as a "Keep". K.e.coffman (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Maier-Schwartz, Sagit (2013-05-29). "Bringing Beverly Hills Cosmetic Surgery to the Middle East". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

  2. Snead, Elizabeth (2013-07-26). "Why Hollywood's Plastic Surgeons Decamped to Dubai". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

  3. Carrington, Daisy (2014-09-05). "Dubai, the world's plastic surgery hub". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     The article notes:

  4. Corwin, Tom (2008-04-27). "'Dr. 90210' star sees job changing". The Augusta Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2016-10-16. Retrieved 2016-10-16.

     This article quotes Diamond extensively.

  5. Zain, Asma Ali (2010-10-27). "Celebrity plastic surgeon to start practice in Dubai". Khaleej Times. Archived from the original on 2017-04-18. Retrieved 2017-04-18.

     The article notes:

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jason Diamond to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A California plastic surgeon can be a V.I.P., can have revenues bigger than some countries, is economically, socially, entertainmently and otherwise significant. A Beverly Hills one is even more important. And they had a TV show! Keep. And per Graeme Bartlett, keep. And per Cunard, keep. --doncram 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete just another semi-celebrity doctor. This is just an advertisement, not a NPOV WP article. And it only can be advertisement b/c there are insufficient independent RS with significant discussion of this person. Yes a lot of surgeons are rich. Doesn't make them notable. Very strange arguments being made here. Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The sources provided are reliable and verifiable and provide the type of broad coverage that establishes notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Ping participants of the prior AfDs: @Johnpacklambert, DGG, JamesBWatson, Bearian, Green Cardamom, Alansohn, SwisterTwister, Unscintillating, Lemongirl942, and Bonadea: to help reach a consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essentially advertising. NOT ADVOCACY is a mouch more basic criterion than problems about notability--if it's advertising ,we shouldn't even be considering it. The sources are also advertising, as the quotes from them above makes obvious. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and no sources have been provided to demonstrate that The Atlantic, The Hollywood Reporter, or CNN are publishing advertising about Jason Diamond.

  Cunard (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

we judge the reliability of sources by examining them. using our judgment. It's not like writing an article, that needs references. If the Atlantic writes an advertorial, like the one here, judge what it is by reading it. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dr. 90210. All notability is related to his appearance on the show, and I agree everything else appears to be advertorial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:38, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Claims of advocacy is an opinion I can't understand. The article has been written by and gone over by many veteran editors with no connection to the doctor. No one here is advertising for or on behalf of the doctor. Nor is there evidence the sources themselves are not independent. -- GreenC 15:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because of all the prior keep arguments which are better than the delete !votes. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 18:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Dr. 90210. While sources have been found, they all stem from the show. All 5 of the above examples deal with his relation to the tv show, absent that relationship, he gets written about in zero of those articles. Without the show, he has no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The sources do not stem from the TV show Dr. 90210, which ran from 2004 to 2008. Four articles cited above were published in 2010, 2013, 2013, and 2014. The articles stem from his work as a plastic surgeon in the Middle East in Dubai. The articles discuss how he previously appeared on the TV show.

  That the articles were published years after the TV show ended and are focused on his plastic surgeon work in Dubai indicates that it would not editorially make sense to redirect his article to Dr. 90210, which per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Due and undue weight would be unable to cover his Dubai work.

  Cunard (talk) 06:41, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Dr. 90210 or Delete - Onel5969 really nailed it, he has no SIGNIFICANT coverage outside of that show. The rest is just self-promotion and brief mentions. LAroboGuy (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.