Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Dispenza

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. SilkTork *^YES! 11:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Dispenza[edit]

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

Non-notable chiropractor noted for an interview in a documentary. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Literally NO coverage in any of the usual Reliable Sources. At Google News, all you find is a few calendar items about book signings, overwhelmed by items about other people named Joe Dispenza, at least two of whom have far more hits than he does. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, being interviewed in a single documentary that is not about you or your work does not confer notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He has being interviewed in many more than one "not single" documentary, some of them are: What the bleep do we know?, The Moses Code, and in his own Evolve Your Brain - The Science of Changing Your Mind DVD. About the Google Hits:

[...] Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test.

[...] Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet.

Furthermore, Dr. Dispenza raise an avant-garde subject as the neurosciencie is, and his first publication deals with several unsolved problems in neuroscience.--Sailorsun (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – As indicated above, the Ghits lack substance. In addition, there are zero GNEWS hits. Your arguments and the article support fail to show the subject meets the criteria in WP:BIO to establish notability using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Arguing "lack of substance" must be done so from an impartial standpoint, and the claim that GNEWS lists zero results is not true:[1] Sailorsun (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Why you would you feel I am not impartial in my review of GHits, please assume good faith. ~~You are wrong about the GNEWS hits. See [2].~~ Once again, your arguments and the article support fail to show the subject meets the criteria in WP:BIO needed to establish notability using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I think you are biased, because I get the impression that you channel your efforts into the deletion of numerous articles from Wikipedia, and, at least in this one, you put forth political assertions and rules in a redundant and static fashion. Furthermore, your statistics are not contrasted, and therefore can, erroneously, negatively affect the permanency of the article. In any case, what I have said previously does not at all mean that I do not take you in good faith; certain fundamentalism, perhaps. In short, my opinion is that petitions for deletion neither should be taken lightly, nor be based on the fact that someone may not know about the topic or person in question, nor be justified with simple transcriptions of internal politics. Sometimes thinking that an article must be deleted does not necessarily mean that it is true. Sailorsun (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For your information I channel my efforts into helping insure the articles in Wikipedia meet the criteria set forth by the consensus of the community. Instead of trying to discredit my actions and setting up a straw man argument, your time would be better spent providing the support to show the subject meets the criteria in WP:BIO needed to establish notability using reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 14:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Further support for my "delete" vote above: he has no presence at Google Scholar except his one book; he is "not found" at PubMed; he is "not found" at ChiroWeb or the major chiropractic journals. It appears he has never published anything in any peer-reviewed forum. So his claim to be some kind of scientist is unsupported. That leaves WP:AUTHOR which he fails. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2010 (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.