Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Diamond (doctor) (2nd nomination)

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.

John Diamond (doctor)

John Diamond (doctor) (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)

This is a promotional article about a quack "holistic healer". It was created by a

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- I think we should treat this individual as an
  wp:author. Superficially, they seem to have authored a number of books, the wikipedia article describes 2 as bestsellers, although this is unreferenced. If some of his books were indeed bestsellers, might be notable. I am not happy with "voting" keep unless the bestseller description can be reliably sourced. Lesion (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There's no notability guideline for bestseller. There are bestseller authors who are non-notable, and non-bestselling authors who are. For a list of some reliability problems with "bestseller" see

GreenC 19:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Per
  WP:FRINGE, fringe topics such as unevidence-based pseudomedicine can only notable if someone mainstream has dealt appropriate criticism rather than ignoring him. Wikipedia shouldn't be including this nonsense without appropriate criticism. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• This is not really a fringe topic. This is a bio article... Lesion (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's a fringe topic. There are several
    WP:FRINGE applies. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • It is about an individual, not an alt med system. Lesion (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I doubt we'll have a very good article if we concentrate on the individual, how he loves his wife, kids and dog, what his golf handicap is, and whether he prefers aussie rules, rugby or league, and other personal things that don't make him notable. I suspect therefore main content should be about his views on medicine, and apparently on how that medicine shouldn't be based on evidence, but on woo. That makes it a
      WP:FRINGE, clearly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I went through the article again to double check. There is very little content that is about the alt med system this individual is involved with, most content is directly related to him. I don't think there is any

coatrack issue here. We should be discussing whether or not the individual is notable for a bio article, not deleting this page because we disagree with the alt med system he is associated with. Really you are voting to delete applied kinesiology, not this page, do you see? Lesion (talk) 18:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

But that's nonsense. Per

WP:MEDRS. Applied kinesiology is kept because unfortunately it is a nonsensical subject that people believe in, and which has been addressed by the forces of DBSFS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

We do not determine notability for bio articles according to whether you consider the topic they are associated with "so fucking stupid". You have not presented any legitimate reason to delete this bio article, and you seem to be failing to get the point on this issue. This is a bio article about someone (imo) whose primary potential notability is as an author. We should judge notability according to GNG and specifically

WP:author. I particularly would like to see reliable source for the "bestselling books" comment, which arguably would indicate wp:author is satisfied, not sure how others feel. Lesion (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

MEDRS is not intended for bio articles. If this article were a coatrack, making health claims, then those claims should be removed, rather than requiring them to be sourced according to MEDRS. Lesion (talk) 21:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is making claims. The claim that pseudomedicine is being practised, with the implication that it is effective, is a

WP:MEDRS claim. Trying to treat people based on practices that show no efficacy in gold standard double-blind placebo controlled trials while invoking nonsensical unscientific principles to support the prescription of said treatment is stupid. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Upon third reading, I could not find any health claim. Please copy and paste here the part of the article you feel constitutes a health claim, thank you. Lesion (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While he may well not be notable, I think it's a little out of order to refer to a qualified doctor and psychiatrist as a "quack". This is a term usually used to refer to someone who claims to be a doctor but isn't. While he may embrace alternative views, Diamond does appear to be a genuine doctor. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think quack has any strict definition. I think it is often applied to genuine doctors (i.e. people with a medical degree) who don't hold mainstream beliefs. Lesion (talk) 08:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete- I also think this should be judged under
  wp:author.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep
  GreenC 20:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as I said earlier. No source is perfect or wholly reliable. although the NYT Bestseller list can be manipulated, it sis still the best such list available for the US.Of course this is fringe, but the fact that something is fringe or even pseudoscience is no reason not to cover it when it can be covered objectively. I would be reluctant to accept an article on his theory, but he can still be considered objectively as an author. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]