Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoshiaki Omura

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 of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiaki Omura

This article was previously nominated for deletion, and consensus was reached that it was notable as an example of pseudoscience. Subsequent editing toward NPOV, however, has resulted in the elimination of any explicity pseudoscience reference in the body text as well as in an article which is lengthy and presents a fairly elaborate description of these dubious 'procedures' which in my judgement might be misconstrued, and which has actively engaged a proponent attempting to render the article a pro-Omura/BDORT piece in the name of neutrality – as well as the valiant efforts of another editor to maintain WP standards. The very lengthy discussion seems to have resulted, in my judgement, in little more than stalemate, with the question of the article's grounds for notability, now that the pseudoscience aspect has been relegated to the margins, now open. Effectively, the only established NPOV cite is that of the NZ authorities. It is unclear to me if this is sufficient to justify an entry, and I would like to throw the question to the community for consideration. TealCyfre 19:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note - Please note the discussions on the Talk page for this AfD.

• Delete – I am the original creator of this entry, a choice I now consider to have proven ill-advised. At the time of its creation I had, as a newcomer, some mistaken impressions as to what was suitable for a WP entry, which impressions have since then been somewhat clarified. In the light of that somewhat broader comprehension I would make the following points, and will then leave the discussion to others:

• An entry must be notable solely on the basis of verifiable independent sourcing.
• When limited to such sourcing the only acceptable information we have for Omura and his armamentarium is limited to a patent on record and another on application, and the en passant establishment of the NZ Tribunal in the case of Richard Gorringe that PMRT/BDORT/Applied Kinesiology are without scientific basis and therefore an unacceptable modality of treatment. TealCyfre 03:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Dear TealCyfre, please be advised that it is considered unethical and/or bad form for the nominator of AfD to add his/her vote below, as the very act of nominating normally constitutes a vote. It is acceptable and quite common for the nominator to follow up with relevant comments below other people's votes, which you have obviously also done. I leave it to you to cross out your vote above. This relocation by Philosophus is also acceptable. Now to your specific points:

1. Notability and proper sourcing - we are all in agreement, I think, every single one of us here.
2. Specific notability here: please review again the 6 points I raised above, per your request. You may not agree with my opinions, but you seem to ignore 4 other points at least.

If I may add my own summary here: Dr. Omura claims to have created a simple technique whereby it is possible to easily diagnose/cure most/many diseases that afflict mankind, which he calls BDORT. Apparently Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner, used this technique on some patients in NZ, to the exclusion of conventional medicine. He was brought in front of a Medical Disciplinary Tribunal which reprimanded and fined him, and specifically concluded that BDORT (which it called PMRT) was 'ineffective' and 'irresponsible' to use[1]. Yet, it seems (based on reliable sourcing) that BDORT is still being promoted around the world, for example by the New York Academy of Medicine[2][3]. Also, at least one BDORT article appeared in the peer reviewed Medical Acupuncture journal [4]. Dr. Omura has multiple impressive [5][6] medical credentials obtained at major US institutions according to his CV. This is a clear case of notability of both Dr. Omura and his BDORT technique. Establishing notability does not imply judgment of merit of Omura or BDORT. In fact, by prominently displaying the NZ Tribunal's result, WP is clearly showing the only mainstream's assessment of BDORT. But one can't just wish something one disagrees with away - the item's notability must be assessed objectively, and then, assuming it rises above the required notability level (which I believe it easily does in this case), it is WP's editors mission to present a neutral and well sourced version of it. I think what we have now is actually pretty good, and if anyone can suggest ways to improve it please do so. Crum375 04:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the situation on nominators adding a vote is more confused - while some people say that doing so is bad form, the Guide to deletion actually says that doing so improves the clarity of the discussion. I have seen a few AfDs where the nominator has been neutral, so I can see how it could help, but adding it to the bottom like this detracts from the clarity, so I have moved it to the top. I usually put an explicit statement of my position somewhere in my nomination when nominating something for AfD. --Philosophus ^T 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with you. I think all would agree that adding a nominator's vote at the bottom of the discussion may create an appearance of an extra vote. Having a clear vote (or neutrality) along with the nomination is fine. The way you moved the nom's vote here is OK with me. I have fixed my comment above. Crum375 12:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly content to stand on the sufficiency of previous statements and will leave judgement to others in the community. TealCyfre 04:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

. . . and wider judgement, though not likely in so minor a matter as this re Omura, to the fullness of time and the wider world. TealCyfre 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This article is about Dr. Omura and his invention, the BDORT procedure. Both have more than amply sourced notability. Specifically, there are multiple international symposia, as well as 'continuing education' courses, held at (but not by) mainstream institutions. All of this is well sourced in the article. Also, the BDORT procedure itself was subject to review by a highly qualified medical ethics review panel in NZ. They concluded that BDORT has 'no scientific validity'. IMO, the combination of a highly promoted medical procedure that is claimed by its promoters to diagnose and cure everything from cancer to the common cold, coupled with a clear verdict by an ethics review panel of 'no scientific validity', all well sourced, more than meets WP's notability and sourcing criteria. I don't think we have to resort to tossing in inflammatory 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' adjectives (which directly label its promoters as charlatans) to allow the article to stay. It can stay as long as it meets WP's objective inclusion criteria which I think it easily does. Crum375 19:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete attractive though it is to debunk this obvious charlatan, 500 Googles and nothing evident on Scholar, with only two neutral references (NZ disciplinary and US court record), suggests a failure to meet WP:BIO. Just zis Guy you know? 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• If these credentials fail to establish notability, then I may need to recalibrate my notometer. Yes, he and BDORT may not be accepted by the mainstream, but that doesn't change the fact that he edits journals, hosts symposia and delivers courses, all promoting his BDORT and related concepts, some held at mainstream institutions. Crum375 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
• The problem, here, though, is sourcing, as you've said yourself in discussion. The bio info you cite is sourced to Omura's site, not independently verified, as is also the situation for the claims of use. Even if it were verified, which it isn't, the bio info itself doesn't likely rise to the 'professor's test' of notability simply because the fellow self-publishes his 'international journal.' The mainstream institution you cite is simply listing a 'conference' in a local hotel – it isn't actually hosting or sponsoring it at all – which is the case for many of its other listings. We seem to have no verifiable sources for claims of widespread use at all – only vanity sources, hence the notability issue. This seems to leave the Omura entry in verifiable form dependent solely on the NZ commission and its ruling re Gorringe – for both of whom we have already appropriate short entries. If WP presents claims of widespread use, etc, not independently verified, it seems to me there may be issues at a number of levels. TealCyfre 19:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• This reference to BDORT is not self published to my knowledge. The publisher also claims peer review (see item 9). We know that it was used in NZ since the practitioner using it got punished. Dr. Omura's seminars, though not directly promoted by mainstream institutions, can be viewed as accepted by them (to an outside observer) by virtue of their being publicized on their Web site. As far as the WP:BIO notable professor test, I would think that holding multiple international symposia and courses promoting one's technology would suffice, but being listed in: "Who's Who of American Inventors, American Men and Women of Science, Dictionary of International Biography, Men of Achievement, International Who's Who in Community Service, International Who's Who of Intellectuals, Who's Who in World Medicine", assuming we accept the veracity of this claim (we are encouraged to accept this per WP self-bio guidelines until proven otherwise unless it is controversial and the bio info per se is not, to my knowledge), would also help notability claims. Crum375 19:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Who's Who is not a verifiable or reliable source, nor a reliable indicator on notability. This was discussed some time ago, and I can't find the discussion. Those publications, if I recall the discussion correctly, create entries based on information given to them by the person in question, who pays in exchange for the entry. --Philosophus ^T 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, I researched Who's Who some more after posting that message and I tend to agree with you that that specific part of Omura's resume does not verifiably connote notability. Crum375 21:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I’m concerned that WP, in the name of NPOV, may be used to promote for-profit dubious activities, verifiable only through paid placement and vanity self-publication, and may, to boot, inherit potential liability issues as a result of so doing. Your first cite is not self-evidently self-published, but you yourself have consistently argued in discussion against its acceptability since the author of the article is not an MD, but only, so far as anyone can determine, holds a PhD in Sports Medicine, and refers to its being ‘triple-blinded’ because three people in physical contact with one another avoided eye contact. If this is ‘triple-blinded’, heaven knows what ‘peer-reviewed’ means in their usage. As to the professor test: A near infinite number of academics and MDs attend and/or host various seminars, and yes, in the modern world they are very often ‘international.’ They are not, in my understanding, per WP criteria deemed notable. We have nothing, other than the promotional claims of Omura’s own two sites and their echoes, to vouche for attendance, extent, etc – and these are promotions for money-making activities which WP, if it is not exceedingly careful, may fall into the trap of vouching for and promoting in my estimation, which could create non-trivial exposure in the event of another Gorringe-like incident occurring. All the various listings you present, in addition to being non-verified, are to publications which simply list anyone who pays to be listed. Hardly confirmation of notability in my estimation, and arguably evidence of vanity combined with non-notability. TealCyfre 20:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• My critique of the Shinnick article had to do with the validity of its technical assessment of BDORT as a medical technique, not with its being a neutral source that seems to show that BDORT exists outside of Omura's publications. Hence the 'triple blindedness' is not an issue, as the scientific credentials of the author are not established. As for WP inadvertently promoting a scientifically unproven technique by its NPOV stance, I believe that by simply neutrally presenting the facts as we see them in the public domain, and including a reference to pseudoscience, quackery and alternative medicine in the 'See Also' section, we would be safe. It does mean that we have to be extra careful to be as neutral as possible and present the relevant sources with appropriate weight. For example, all Omura's related Web sites and publications count very little for our purposes, as they would not be considered neutral. The NZ document would get a lot of weight by virtue of its neutrality as well as the credentials of its experts. As far as the professor test, IMO there are not a lot of professors who actually organize and hold multiple international symposia, while promoting their techniques or inventions. I agree that we have no hard proof as to attendance figures, but there are some abstracts and I would have to assume that at least the authors attended. Crum375 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- TheFarix (Talk) 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Crum375. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Weak Delete I don't see any reason to overturn the previous consensus on notability. Seems like the NPOV issue should be resolved by some other method (sorry, I'm still new so I'm not sure which). Personally I think the article is ok as long as it states clearly and prominently that the procedure has not been medically validated, and says something along the lines of "This could be an example of pseudoscience", so that people can research the skeptical POV. - Wickning1 18:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• A problem here, at least with the article in its present form, is that it scrupulously avoids any such usage in the text so as to avoid use of any such 'pejorative' or 'offensive' language, under the reasoning that such use would violate NPOV. TealCyfre 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed, but as dicussed in the Talk page, having Alternative Medicine, Pseudoscience and Quackery in the 'See Also' section allows the reader to understand the issues better and reach his/her own conclusions. This is very different from actually calling it pseudoscience etc. where WP would be expressing an opinion, which is an absolute taboo. Crum375 20:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see this as a trap. If WP policy requires that any such characterization be relegated to effective afterthought status it leaves the entry vulnerable to use as a promotional tool of adherents when, in fact, its only claim to notability is its status as quackery/pseudoscience. In addition to the inaccuracy this would represent it may also present potential problems down the line if claim is made that WP, despite standard disclaimers, allowed itself to be used to promote these activities. TealCyfre 20:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• WP's mission is to neutrally present well sourced information about notable topics. We really should separate notability, which allows us to continue, and the neutrality of the presentation. Assuming we meet the notability burden, which I think we do, the issues of how to present the topic fairly and the weights to assign to each source need to be addressed and agreed upon by consensus, which is what we try to do. Crum375 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• The disclaimer really needs to be up top in the overview. There are various organizations that publish guidelines for spotting pseudoscience, perhaps an appeal to the guidelines could be included in the overview without violating NPOV. - Wickning1 20:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Update I think the article in present form is acceptable (barely) from the NPOV standpoint, but there do seem to be big notability problems - no evidence that anyone notable even knows of the procedure, other than a disciplinary board (and us, haha). No evidence of being notable even within acupuncture or pseudoscientific circles. A job at a university, a self-published journal, and a bunch of self-hosted events with unknown attendence don't meet WP:BIO professor guidelines. The only evidence I can find of notability is that New York accredited his talk to count toward a special acupuncture certification (would not help fulfill general continuing education req's). So I changed my vote. - Wickning1 20:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• You say you see "No evidence of being notable even within acupuncture". Well, this reference is in a "peer reviewed" Acupuncture journal. I have problems with the technical merits of the paper, but the issue here is notability, not technical merits. Then this reference shows that a mainstream institution is publiczing Omura's seminars about BDORT. I think BDORT and Omura are adequately notable even without any of Omura's related sites. Crum375 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, that is something at least. Still doesn't imply much notability, but at least someone else read his papers. I'll stick with weak delete for now though. - Wickning1 22:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• You might want to bear in mind, Wickning1, that we are talking about someone having a single cite in a single journal, once, and this in an article written by someone who as best we can determine is a PhD in SportScience, who once was in the Olympics, and who makes a living promoting this stuff. The other example of 'notability' given here is that in a long monthly listing of seminars/meetings presented, Omura's, held at a local hotel, is on the list. If these make Omura 'notable' then 'notable' has a pretty low threshhold, or so it would seem to me. By these criteria I would think nearly every physician and college professor would manage to qualify, and it is explicit WP policy, as I understand it, that the threshhold simply isn't that low. TealCyfre 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral Keep: I'm not sure about this. I withdrew the nomination because it does appear that, as a pseudoscientist, Omura and his practices are notable. They do seem to have international use among doctors of questionable reputation. However, the article has now been turned into what amounts to an advertisement for the practices with "These findings are not known to have been presented to or subject to evaluation by conventional independent peer-reviewed assessment." tacked on to the end of each section, much like the FDA warnings on most bogus medicines. This is not an acceptable method of NPOV. The findings probably haven't been presented for peer review (excluding, of course, peer review by Omura's colleagues) because it would be too difficult to find legitimate reviewers who could consider it as something other than a joke. An RfC for the article might help, but as with most articles like this, it is difficult to find people who care enough to maintain the article against supporters, and deal with the usual wikilawyering. I would very much like to see this as a real NPOV article, but it seems that that isn't really going to be possible. Ironically, TealCyfre may be the person who is able to do this. But given the choice between an article like the current one and deletion, I would choose deletion. --Philosophus ^T 21:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, various doctors in the NZ tribunal seem to vaguely reference a variety of articles which, if found, would solidify PMRT/BDORTs notability. For example, there seems to be a claim that there were double-blind tests published in peer-reviewed journals which found the method to be ineffective. Why can't we find any of these? --Philosophus ^T 23:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I would agree that perhaps the 'standard disclaimer' is insufficient as people may be inured to it. Also there may be too much detail describing the various modes of the invention. But we do need a fair presentation of what's there, with language clarifying that the only assessment we have by the mainstream is the NZ report. Also, if I may ask, would you mind leaving the current version intact until we finish discussing it and until we reach some consensus? Thanks, Crum375 21:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hmmm... 19 minutes later you told me my newer edits were acceptable, so I assume that that comment supercedes this one?

• Yes. Crum375 01:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm in effective agreement with Philosophus on these issues. I'm strongly inclined to the judgement that if any article at all is appropriate with respect to the NPOV issues, it must be very short, as I had suggested earlier. It may be that given the practical problem of finding enough people who care to maintain the article against supporters re-expanding it to another advertisement it is most appropriate to delete. I sincerely haven't a firm final judgement in this as yet, and I'm open to argument, but I think there are real problems here. TealCyfre 21:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think that the issues of length and notability are independent of each other. There is no WP policy that says that article X may be included only if it can be kept to Y words or less. If anything, we have the 'WP is not paper' policy that almost encourages us to provide extra detail. The primary and critical issue for inclusion is notability - do we have it or not - if not - forget the rest. If yes, then the only constraints are neutrality, verifiable sourcing, due weights, good style etc. Your concern about letting WP become a platform for promoting unproven science will be addressed by properly following the above guidelines. Crum375 22:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• I also believe that the article's size doesn't have too much influence on the POV, as long as it does not become a long rant which no one but a supporter can understand enough to edit (like Modern Galilean relativity). --Philosophus ^T 22:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think I see the core issues as two-fold: 1) Notability, per se, given the fact that there are entries for Gorringe and the NZ commission. 2) The probability, given scant awareness of the existence of Omura, that an entry provides a point of entry for adherents devoted to the creation of an advert to further 'legitimize' their process, which, to further compound the practical problem, may present WP with legal exposure. TealCyfre 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I think if 'legal exposure' is a criterion, WP might as well steer clear of any controversy, or just fold up tent. The correct approach is to decide on notability, and if it exists, write a good article per WP policies of neutrality, good sourcing, due weights, etc. The 'threat of the zealots' is part of the WP process for many articles, and so far WP has managed just fine. See also the Talk page. Crum375 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid my understanding diverges here. My understanding is that WP policies do indeed consider potential legal exposure. Perhaps I'm in error. In any event, what, given the fact that the Gorringe entry exists and the NZ Tribunal entry exists, is the notability justification for this entry, really? Verifiably, we have objectively scant evidence even of its existence. What we have evidences yet another deluded fool or charlatan promoting himself. As I understand it these don't rise to notability simply because they were referenced by the NZ tribunal in the case of Gorringe. Everything else we have on Omura is Omura's self-promotion and self-publication or that of his presumably tiny band of followers with no meaningful evidence even of their existence aside from self-promotion other than the passing quasi-advert for a meeting. How is this notable? TealCyfre 23:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• I am not saying legal exposure is a non-issue for WP. Like any organization or individual, especially in today's sue-happy environment, one has to tread carefully. Having said that, the mere fear of exposure if we address sensitive or controversial topics should not paralyze us nor thwart our mission. If we handle each notable topic while carefully adhering to WP's policies of neutrality, reliable sourcing, due weights, etc. we should be on safe ground with any future jury. As far as notability in this case, the fact that some components related to Omura/BDORT have been explained in separate articles would not detract from the notability of the Omura/BDORT. We possibly would want to merge items (e.g. Gorringe, NZ Tribunal) but I doubt it. I think Omura/BDORT is the primary focus we currently have for the other articles, and believe we have more than enough reliable and neutral sources to establish Omura's/BDORT's notability. Crum375 23:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• What are they, then? TealCyfre 23:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Off the top of my head, here are some important ones:

1. Shinnick article (BDORT in non-Omura publication)
2. NZ Tribunal report (neutral, tech assessment of BDORT)
3. Omura CV (allowed to be his own Web site at this point)
4. Omura BDORT seminars publicized by New York Academy
5. Omura BDORT patent (neutral, describes the procedure)
6. Omura Legal Precedent for RICO misuse (neutral)

I probably should stick in the links, which are all in the article. Let me know if you need them here. Crum375 00:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see these as likely proof of Omura’s and BDORT’s existence. I fail to comprehend how they rise to even the lowest level of notability.

1) The Shinnick article is an article by a non-MD in an alternative medicine journal. We don’t, so far as I know, have an entry for every professor whose work has been evaluated or referred to in an academic journal – once.

• The issue is not if we have an article for each such case but whether such a situation is notable per se. It seems to me that that publication adds credence to the existence of BDORT and to the fact that it was published, at least once, in an academic journal. My opinion is that once it is so published it becomes notable by WP's definition of the word. It does not have to be a house-hold word. And the fact that Shinnick is not an MD has nothing to do with notability. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

2) The NZ report does not vouch for notability of BDORT per se. It addresses the utter lack of scientific credibility for BDORT. In any event, there is an entry for Gorringe, and the commission’s report, which had an effect in altering policy re alternative medicine. These are notable, to at least some degree. Omura/BDORT, however, are only established as references, not as notable in and of themselves. Indeed, the commission simply treats them as insignificant variations on the theme of applied kinesiology.

• The NZ report is read within NZ among practitioners and others. It is a neutral highly qualified publication. Certainly its readers would know about BDORT (or PMRT in their case) after this report came out. Yes, it does not focus on Omura - the focus is on BDORT/PMRT. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

3) Omura’s CV is notable only if he is notable, which has not been independently established. Anyone can write a CV, say anything they want, and put it on the net on a couple of sites which they control.

• Very true. Anyone can write anything on the Web. But this is Omura's Web page and WP policy is that we allow wide tolerance to a person's bio on his own Web page unless some fact is contentious. If you disagree with some fact on his page, please speak up. And yes, alone this would not be enough, this is part of the larger package. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

4) ‘Publicized’ is a dubious term. The Academy has a listing. You will note that it is no more than that. They have many listings for many things. Are they all notable by virture of their having been listed?

• It is the Academy's official Web page, with their official course schedule. The other 'things' they list are also courses. This proves BDORT is publicized (i.e. published to promote participation in a course) by a mainstream institution. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

5) There is a patent. There are many patents, and claims of notability based on existence of a patent are routinely deleted from WP as non-notable.

• True. Mere existence of a patent per se would not establish notability. In this case the reference is used to describe the procedure in a neutral site and show it exists outside of Omura's domain, and that the US government at least looked at it (with obviously no merit claim). BTW, lots of people read all newly issued patents which are published in a gazette by the USPTO. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

6) Omura was so far as we know not directly involved in the Heart Disease Research case you reference. Granted, he is on evidence of self-published sources the Director of Medical Research of the Heart Disease Research Foundation. I fail to see how this establishes his notability.

• I believe these are your own words (please correct me if I am wrong):

The Heart Disease Research Foundation, of which Omura has been Director of Medical Research since 1971,[19] in 1972 sued General Motors on behalf of all citizens of the United States affected by pollution from General Motors, seeking substantial actual and punitive monetary damages to be awarded to its research activities.

if this is wrong, then it needs fixing, I guess. Crum375 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• It is not wrong, in that it is an accurate statement of fact. The statement that Omura is Dir Med Rsch HDRF is verifiable so far as I am aware only via self-published sources. Nor does it constitute evidence of notability for Omura and his armamentarium. It was originally part of a separate entry for HDRF which was conflated with this entry. TealCyfre 02:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the Omura bio on his own Web site claims that he is the "Director of Medical Research" (DMR) of HDRF, then as I understand WP policy for bio info on one's own Web site that information is allowed (properly sourced to that Web site) unless there is any opposing claim, in which case more investigation (i.e. better sourcing to resolve the conflict) would be needed. Are you aware of any claim that Omura is not the DMR of HDRF? And as far as notability, if we accept that he is/was in fact DMR of HDRF when they took on GMC 'on behalf of the people of the USA', and created a legal precedent in the process (for which we have a separate and valid reference), I would consider that another chunk of notability. Crum375 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The notability question comes first, in my understanding. If Omura is not notable then other questions are moot. So, then, this other bit of 'notability' consists of his having, according to his own CV, been Dir Med Rsch of the HDRF at the time of a baseless suit that established precedent in that the courts preferred in future not to have to trouble themselves with going through the motions of dismissing suits which didn't even attempt to establish their basis? You will note that the HDRF itself was effectively judged non-notable when its independent entry was folded into that of Omura. Now we have the spectacle of that entry, having been established as non-notable, constituting evidence that Omura is notable in the absence of other established basis for establishing his notability. This seems to me the sum of infinitesimal evidence amount to nothing more than the sum of infinitesimal evidence, sorry if I'm not persuaded. TealCyfre 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• That the suit was 'baseless' is not an issue. The issue is that it created a precedent which was subsequently cited in the Bonano Organized Crime suit, where Omura/HDRF was used as precedent. I doubt that your average run-of-the-mill frivolous suit reaches that level of notability. Whether some previous discussion considered HDRF and its suit to be sufficienly notable on its own to justify its own article is immaterial here. We are relying on this lawsuit to add more notability to the Omura article, and yes there is a cumulative effect, but my suspicion is that if you spend some time (as I have) reviewing and voting on AfD's, you'd discover the WP Keep bar is set much lower than you seem to think. Crum375 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but for my part I fail to see how these rise to the level of notability. Gorringe is notable, his cases having in part prompted further clarification/revision of NZ codes of practice, as is the NZ commission and its successor commission, which are intrinsically notable. You will note that while press coverage may be found of Gorringe, there is none of Omura or BDORT in connection with the case, further suggesting their lack of notability. Omura is not on my considered judgement notable on the basis of the NZ case, which in the course of addressing Gorringe's defense duly consults expert witness and then dismisses Gorringe's PMRT and Omura's BDORT upon which Gorringe asserts his PMRT is based as utterly without claim to scientific merit of any sort, as simply another variant of Applied Kinesiology. This would establish via objective sourcing Omura and BDORT's claims to validity as spurious were they notable, but they do not in my judgement establish notability. The listing of seminars simply fails the professor's test in my judgement, and thus fails to establish notability. TealCyfre 01:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The listing of seminars does not apply to the professor's test. It applies to the notability of BDORT as a procedure, since there is a course delivered on it, publicized in the official web site of a mainstream academic institution. It does connote some notability to Omura, but that is not the thrust of that reference. In the NZ case, again, it is the BDORT/PMRT procedure that became notable, as it was allegedly used in lieu of conventional medicine to the detriment of a patient's best medical care, and the practitioner was disciplined and fined. This connotes notability to the BDORT/PMRT procedure as well as the practitioner. Crum375 01:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Then I presume you feel every comparable listing of every comparable seminar is notable by WP standards. This would mean every topic treated in every seminar listed in a publication.
• Gorringe became notable. I see no evidence that it raised Omura or BDORT to the level of notability. If so, where is that evidence? TealCyfre 01:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The seminar listing of a course given on topic X, publicized on the official web site of a mainstream academic institution, connotes notability for topic X, especially if topic X is claimed to diagnose/solve many/most of mankind's diseases. PMRT became notable by being cited in the final report of the NZ tribunal, as follows:

  "We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible." (Tribunal Findings, para 363)[7]

I would respectfully submit that a published report by an eminently qualified medical disciplinary tribunal, that considers use of a procedure "unacceptable and irresponsible", makes that procedure (PMRT/BDORT) notable. I suspect that this was the reason the case was publicized by the Tribunal (note that some cases are kept confidential). Crum375 02:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• The seminar listing you cite simply lists 'Acupuncture and Electro-Therapeutics in Clinical Practice' as description. There is no further description whatsoever. Are you seriously advancing the argument that this constitutes notability?

• If you look up the contents of one of the 2 Omura seminars publicized on the Academy's Web site, e.g. here you will note it includes BDORT. So I would say that if someone publicizes a symposium on a mainstream academic institution's official Web site, that would make BDORT, a featured sub-topic of the symposium (note the illustration), and most likely Omura, notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your 'suspicion' is unfounded and irrelevant as to notability. There is no basis in fact to the assertion that the tribunal publicized the case. The tribunal may if it chooses elect confidentiality, if requested. We have no reason to believe it was requested. If Omura/BDORT were rendered notable by the case, where is the evidence? TealCyfre 02:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• I can't read the Tribunal's minds, but if they elected to publish their report on their publicly accessible Web site, I think a reasonable person would conclude they intended to publicize it. In any case, having been publicized in that official site, the procedure, which features prominently in the report per above, becomes notable. Crum375 02:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Question: Do we have any articles that talk about this BDORT as quackery, alternative medicine, etc.? Perhaps it would be good to have a "Controversy" section that lists some of the concerns brought up by those who don't think BDORT is a viable procedure? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know the very fact that, evidently out of interpretation of NPOV, this article can't be labeled clearly as pseudoscience or quackery, which, as an infinitely shorter entry, it was initially. If it can't be, and there is no clear overwhelming evidence as to why it rises to the level of notability I don't see any basis for its existence. TealCyfre 23:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• Please read this report briefly summarized in this section, which will hopefully answer your question. We also include the quackery, pseudoscience and alternative medicine WP references in the 'See Also' section for the reader who wants to learn more about these topics. Crum375 23:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per being the only informaton I could find on here about his little test, (even though I couldn't understand it), which I came across a reference to while watching an interview, strangely enough, doing research for another wiki article, and had no idea what it was. I don't know about the other claims, but seems notable to me, probably more so in some other countries than I'd know. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.