Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Crum375 (talk | contribs) at 19:47, 19 June 2006 (Keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

• 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 can 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)