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. The only claim to notability appears to be unsupported by sources and hasn't convinced anyone else, it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pierce Farrell (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)

Interesting case of WP:SOAP and WP:FRINGEBLP that seems to fail our WP:BIO guildelines for notability. He founded a spirituality-based alternative medicine clinic, but he's hardly the only person to do so and his clinic does not seem to have received more notice than any other randomly chosen alternative medicine clinic in the US. He does not seem to be notable per WP:AUTHOR either. jps (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable fringe author and businessman; no evidence of notability even as a crank presented. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nominator, not an encyclopedic biographical subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I note there are currently 39 references in this article. I checked them: 5 are self published (1, 5, 6, 37, 39), 25 are online works by other people or organisation, where Farrell is not mentioned in the reference (2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36), 3 are offline and not verifiable (4, 10, 30) and 6 are dead links (11, 14, 15, 16, 32, 38). There is no coverage in reliable sources that would help establish notability as per WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Offline sources are not necessarily unverifiable, but I note that 4 was produced by the subject and 30 written by him, so, even if a copy was available, they wouldn't count towards notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above, and thanks to Drchriswilliams for the reference check - David Gerard (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he meets notability, having served as an advisor to multiple United Nations NGO working groups. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Citation needed. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a clear case of WP:REFBOMBing, a kind of gaming of the system that makes it very hard work for anyone to give a reasoned argument for deletion. In such a case I think that it's encumbent on anyone seeking to defend the article to identify three or four of the sources that are independent and reliable and have significant coverage of the subject. Is anyone prepared to step up to the mark? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is that how the process works? I would have thought the burden of work would have been on those arguing for removal of the article. -75.140.253.89 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• But anyone who has supported keeping must already have identified some independent reliable sources with significant coverage in order to come to that opinion, so why not share them and save the rest of us from having to wade through the junk? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 09:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I did a ransom sample of the references on this article and none of them seemed to offer any significant coverage of this topic. I'd be prepared to reconsider this if we could find at least two reliable sources which substantially deal with this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, after resume padding is pruned this appears not to be a notable quack. Guy (Help!) 11:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: created by a user who edited nothing else (and may be connected to the subject) with lots of references which give the article a veneer of legitimacy until you click on a few and realize they don't support what is asserted. Jonathunder (talk) 14:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable advocate of fringe ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails BIO and is fraudulent, nodding to Drchriswilliams for the reference check. This needs TNT at minimum. Jytdog (talk) 06:51, 6 September 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.