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. ✗plicit 14:38, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Treacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article has a long history of COI and UPE editing, most recently even going so far as to produce fake news articles accusing Wikipedians of defamation. Obviously in of itself that's not a justification to delete, but looking at the sources, they are exclusively related to the publication of a book in 2015 in which the subject claims to have treated Michael Jackson. Beyond those already cited I can only find other articles that are clearly promoting other books e.g. [1] "This is an advertorial on behalf of Dr Patrick Treacy." and this article in the Times written in the first person and with "The Needle and the Damage Done is published by Austin Macauley; €30" at the end. I'm unable to find any truly substantial, independent coverage as required to meet WP:BIO. Combined with the COI issues, I believe that deletion is our best course of action. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Likely pass at AUTHOR for the book reviews [2] and [3] Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Presumably you mean #3? Where is the evidence that the books are "a significant or well-known work"? Those sources have the same issue as the others in the article (the second is already cited) of all being published in a short period and primarily being about Michael Jackson. The full version of the Hindu source is available here btw via WP:TWL. SmartSE (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Ireland, and Northern Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails Wikipedia:Notability: Remove Michael Jackson out of this article, and all you have left is a section listing Treacy's two published books. The Michael Jackson mentions are this doctor's own account of what went on with Jackson. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not going to vote (unless more experienced editors tell me it's ok to do so), because have edited the page.

  Delete: current form non-notable and previous versions largely unverifiable puffery and/or non-notable. Where based on the subject's own words, a clear lack of consistency in accounts given to different sources.

Before adding the notability template, I did explore the possibility of notability for non-Jackson reasons. There are other books, but they seem to have been previously deleted from the page as coming from a known "vanity"-type publisher. Not sure they are notable works in any event: only published references to them are, as noted above, advertorial-type articles. PT's blurb at his publisher's website makes many claims, so I checked some of them out. In short, good luck finding published peer-reviewed evidence of his "studies [note plural] relating to the use of platelet-rich plasma, growth signalling factors and 633nm red light in both facial rejuvenation and hair transplant." Nor does the "Ailesbury Humanitarian Foundation" appear as, for example, a registered charity. None of the awards appear notable. On the other hand he 'is co-author on four academic papers relating to aesthetic or cosmetic medicine (here, here, here and here). One is a recent literature review, not original research; two seem to be inconclusive comparative studies from c. 2005/6 (never cited in one instance, rarely cited in the other); the last is a recent article about patient expectations. None seems notable. Hard to stack up the claims (frequently added to this page by socks/IPs) that there is an academic-type notability. However, perhaps helpful for this discussion to at least consider this additional info. Brammarb (talk) 10:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact you edited the page before doesn't mean you shouldn't participate in the debate (this is WP:NOTAVOTE) if anything it is a reason for you to participate since you would be more familiar with the subject. There's some guidelines about participating in AfD's here: WP:DISCUSSAFD. D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - simply not notable. Allegedly treated a famous person, didn't get called as a witness in a trial - that's it. No WP:SIGCOV absent those two things. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails GNG. Subject has some obsession with the fact they treated Michael Jackson for a few months D1551D3N7 (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - the article was previously deleted, following an [4] - is the new article substantially different? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes it is - mainly due to the 2015 sources. SmartSE (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Bearian (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This [[5]] was posted to the talk page. It is, in effect, a Keep argument, albeit from an SPA that has only ever posted to PT's page or to other pages about PT. The language and arguments are strikingly similar to multiple previous posts to the talk page (by both IPs and shortlived socks). Brammarb (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All of the references except the first (which is a routine government database entry) are entirely self-promotional. There is no significant coverage of Treacy in reliable sources that are fully independent of Treacy. Cullen328 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2025 (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.