Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bertman (2nd 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bertman[edit]

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

Article is written as a purely promotional topic TJH2018 talk 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (struck per following discussion) The article was probably started by a COI SPA, but there is enough meat to warrant keeping it. Bertman appears to meet notability requirements and the coverage is neutral. We're simply reporting why he is known, not promoting his ventures. Meters (talk) 18:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this article via a Pushipedia alert, it finds articles with unusually high levels of editing. Before it was nominated, it was being vandalised by several new accounts who introduced BLP violations, so I have deleted those revisions, indef blocked the accounts, and semi-protected the page for seven days. Fences&Windows 19:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was kept at AfD in 2010. Of the three articles two are now deadlinks, but that doesn't stop them being valid. Some additional sources: http://www.fastcompany.com/3009104/how-to-use-frustration-to-create-something-amazing; http://www.bostonherald.com/business/technology/technology_news/2012/11/hub_based_pri_med_buys_amazing_charts; http://www.inc.com/profile/amazingchartscom Fences&Windows 19:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are lots of sources that mention him that can be used. Meters (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's nothing at all to actually suggest a better article for this physician, entirely questionable overall. Asking DGG for his analysis. SwisterTwister talk 05:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline notability, and the combination of borderline notability and clear promotionalism is a good reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Promotionalism can be dealt with. If his background in electronic health records isn't enough for notability then clearly this should be deleted. There are lots of reliable sources showing his connection to and recognition for his medical records work. I thought that was enough, but I admit I wasn't sure. Glad to have other eyes on it. I'll strike my support. Meters (talk) 01:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few sources cover him but I don't feel what covers him is enough for notability. SJK (talk) 06:11, 30 April 2016 (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.