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 Keep. Cenarium ^Talk 00:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnica Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page was previously speedily deleted. The subject appears to be a non-notable doctor who merely has her own web page and has appeared on a few TV shows. Probably also violates non-commercialisation, and no advertising policies. —G716 <^T·_C> 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NY Times engagement from 1988 Walgreens website Press Release Speaker Bio ... and that's just the first page of Google hits. There's plenty there to construct a decent article. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not everybody whose wedding is announced in the NYT meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the other links provided by Jclemens are commercial. As a physician, subject is not notable -- no evidence of employment at prestigious hospital, no evidence of research or teaching, no evidence of service to the community or to the profession. Just a normal run of the mill doc, who makes some cash on the side from speaking fees. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She's been on TV, appears to be a professional speaker, and is covered on websites, including authoring 28 articles for WebMD. That's a substantially different picture than the nomination painted. It's not at all clear to me, after reading but one page of Google hits, that she is likely to fail WP:BIO. Sure, I didn't find her authoring major papers or curing substantive diseases, nor did I expect to. Rather, she may be a notable physician the same way Carl Sagan was a notable astronomer. That is, maybe WP:ENTERTAINER is the right standard to apply. Could you clarify why you believe the commercial links I cited fail WP:RS, though? Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

She appears to have edited a book in press from DK--not a vanity press: ISBN 0756642779. She appears alongside clearly notable Princeton Alumni, on CNN, to command speaking fees in line with clearly notable persons, and to have received a Women in Government Presidential Leadership Award. That's just a few more pages of google, and skipping over the vast majority of the media appearances. In what way can she possibly be non-notable? Jclemens (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never convince me that Dr Moore is of the same caliber and standing as Carl Sagan, but that's just my opinion which counts for squat. I agree that applying a different standard may work, but even then I'm sure that she's notable. There's nothing wrong with the links you cite - they just don't convince me that she is sufficiently notable for an encyclopedia. I'll be interested to read others' opinions. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 05:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I try to convince you she was in Sagan's league--merely that her notability is due to her media appearances and popular commentary, rather than domain-specific contributions. I, too, would like to hear other people's inputs--I'm rather surprised this nom has attracted so few commentators. Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep WP:HARMLESS, the television appearances and popularity, as well as relationship with celebrities, makes her 'notable' to some extent. If she becomes more notable, this will serve as a better basis for an article than a blank page, and it can always be deleted later if not. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability only of the self-perpetuating kind. JFW | T@lk 16:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject fails WP:BIO. She has not contributed in any notable way to her field. TV appearances and google hits do not make her a notable doctor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Sorry! forgot to signAustin46 (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shall we delete Dr. Phil then, too? Again, I maintain that the right standard is WP:ENTERTAINER. I checked the ACOG website--she's not a board certified gynecologist (and, to be fair, hasn't claimed to be one). Jclemens (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think she fails the criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER too. I just read it again. No-one could really claim she has a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following", nor has she "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment" (unless you count teaching a celebrity to "breastfeed" - but I think breastfeeding's been around a while, so it's not exactly innovative. Oh wait - I haven't watched the video - was she teaching Tyra Banks to feed from someone else's breast... ? Now that might be innovative. I'm sorry - please don't take that as sarcasm, the image just came into my head. Anyway being realistic, I don't think this is someone who is truly notable in any field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin46 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC) Austin46 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The specific part of entertainer I was referring to was "has ... been featured multiple times in notable ... television", but "prolific" fits her pretty well, too. Between television appearances, print/web media columns, speaking/conference appearances, awards, boards she's been a part of, a forthcoming book she's co-editing... I'm convinced of her notability. I'd never heard of her before this AfD, but that's understandable, because I don't ever watch the kinds of shows she appears on. Further, there's no question in my mind that she's absolutely interested in self-promotion. That being said, based on the plethora of WP:RS that exists on her, I think she's already achieved sufficient notoriety to merit inclusion in Wikipedia as a television personality. Jclemens (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article expansion/cleanup in progress. I don't seem to be convincing people without actually doing the expansion myself. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort for articles that CANNOT be cleaned up, yet I don't seem to be making progress without showing the article in an acceptable end-state. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How sad that you seem to have decided to turn this woman's self-promotion effort into some sort of personal cause. Unfortunately there still don't seem to be any notable facts in the merely biographical material that you've added... proving where and when she was born, stating that she has a book which isn't published and so doesn't exist yet, telling us she isn't a gynecologist? There's more to improving an article than increasing the word count. It's very very depressing when so much effort is put into something that simply lowers the standards of this encyclopedia. What a pity you couldn't find a worthier channel for your time and energy.Austin46 (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not done yet. I'd consider it a greater tragedy that Wikipedia throw out perfectly notable and sourcable articles just because they suck at the moment. The sheer number of television appearances make her pass WP:ENTERTAINER--I didn't make that up, I just happen to be the only editor advocating that just because she has an M.D., that doesn't mean her notability has to be established as a physician. Consensus isn't voting, so I'm not worried about being the only one fixing it. There are plenty of ghits for her in non-English languages, meaning that her writings are either being translated into such languages, or that her media appearances are reported in non-English secondary sources. Jclemens (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I hope that you can also bring an objective/critical eye to your effort. It doesn't just need expansion, it needs to be cleaned up and cut, too. The first paragraph is full of linkspam (including two links to the Youtube video) and outrageous exaggeration - it claims "viewed by millions on Youtube" when in fact the Youtube count stands at 664,145. It's nonsense like this that no doubt made the article a candidate for deletion in the first place.Austin46 (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've started to differentiate between what's claimed and what's substantiable. Frankly, it's gotten pretty frustrating to try and find independent sourcing on her professional accomplishments, because when I google any particular accomplishment or notable appearance (e.g., "the view" "donnica moore") I get a bazillion copies of her bio touting that achievement. If you'd like to start deconstructing the opening, feel free. I do plan on getting to it and removing the puffery and linkspam (as you rightly point out is needed) before the AfD closes. Jclemens (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough - from media appearances, if nothing else. Seems to have the sources necessary to support claims. Kelly ^hi! 06:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She's got to be more notable than half the porn "stars" we have articles on. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm done modifying the article. If you voted delete above, please review the article as it stands now to see if it meets WP:HEY. There's still room for improvement, of course, but my intent was to make the article unquestionably salvageable by removing problematic parts and adding well-sourced material. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2008 (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.