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.

The result was keep. Keep! If you're not happy with my closure, please take it to deletion review, thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Diamond (doctor)

(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 WP:SPA who WP:OWNs it. It's advertorial and there is no good evidence of the significance of the subject. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list#Criticisms. In short, "bestseller" is marketing often manipulated. -- 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:REDFLAGs in the article and 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:REDFLAG you can't present nonsensical content uncritically, even if that content is "Johnny Doctor is an author of 17 books on "alternative" medicine, here's a list. He also has a "medical" practice where you can receive "medical treatment"". We have 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:REDFLAG 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. I've been unable to find any decent coverage of any of the "bestsellers", but would happily change my vote if any could be produced. Passing mention here Keep Hard to argue with the "widely cited by peers or successors" part of wp:author.Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:DGG listed sources in the first AfD 4 years ago. The coverage in Google Books is pretty intensive though I have not filtered each one for Fringe status it's sometimes a gray area. The author is best known as the inventor of Behavioral Kinesiology and book of the same name later re-published as Your Body Doesn't Lie. -- 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]

The issue is that the cited sources are either trivial or not independent. I actively follow quackery, and have never come across a mention of this guy. I fund him only accidentally through the link from the much more notable late husband of Nigella Lawson. I have every issue of the UK quack magazine "What Doctors Don't Tell You" (because it's bollocks), I find a scattering of namechecks and no substantive coverage. A smerge to applied kinesiology might work though. Guy (Help!) 00:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable fringe theorist, per DGG and WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the article's primary editor. Dr. Diamond is certainly notable as an author - his book "Your Body Doesn't Lie" is currently at #43,731 in Books on Amazon, and it was written in 1979, showing the perennial influence of his kinesiological writings. It is also currently at #77 in Books > Medical Books > Basic Sciences > Physiology on Amazon (see here). And furthermore it is listed at #39 on Tower Books "Top 100 Alternative Therapies Bestsellers" (see here). Also, Banyen Books (a sizable and reputable "metaphysical bookstore") lists it as a "Banyen Bestseller" (#41 on the site) and a "Great Classic" (see here and here).

Here are a few notable newspaper and periodical references to one aspect of his work with music (listed by DGG in first AfD):

1. The music critic Schonberg in the NY Times "Keep away from the musical note "C," warns kinesiologist Dr. John Diamond in a new book. He says that anybody exercising to music ..." NY Times

2. Chicago Tribune

3. LA Times

4. Marie-Claire

5. And a fascinating article in Stereophile.

In addition to the links above, which refer to major newspapers and periodicals, a significant amount of matter from respected publishers can be found through a Google Books search, eg:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ifquDz9Po6cC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA71#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z6HZTBVxJ-0C&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=79ZWoymp2VsC&q=john+diamond#v=snippet&q=john%20diamond&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=G555GaAf_78C&q=%22john+diamond%22#v=snippet&q=%22john%20diamond%22&f=false

If you do not consider that these references, plus what is in the article, suffice to establish notability, can you please help to clarify what would for an article of this sort?

Regarding two of the references in the article, the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation is certainly well established, and "AK: The International Journal of Applied Kinesiology and Kinesiologic Medicine" is the premier kinesiology journal.

Any help or suggestions would be appreciated - though I do not think deletion is warranted, the article could certainly use improvement.

-----

In response to Bearian's recent edits to the page:

Dr. Diamond is a registered medical doctor in New York State, which can be easily verified here and through the AMA. I would appreciate if Bearian would fix the relevant passages (lead sentence, infobox occupation, last line of fourth paragraph), as they distort the article while it is under evaluation.

Further, I believe that the new lead sentence does not follow the principle to "prefer nonjudgmental language" as per WP:YESPOV. I believe the word "fringe" is highly loaded, as, to a lesser degree, is the entire second half of the sentence.

-----

And in response to the secondary claims of Guy (which are not relevant to the notability of Dr. Diamond):

As per WP:OWN - "Provided that contributions and input from fellow editors are not ignored or immediately disregarded, being the primary or sole editor of an article does not constitute ownership." I have not ignored or immediately disregarded other editor contributions - on the contrary, it can been seen that I have welcomed many edits and suggestions (as can be seen in the page history), and confined disagreements to the talk page.

Regarding the claim that my account is an SPA, I have been open regarding my strong interest in the subject of this article. That being said, I have also made positive contributions to the following pages:

Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven)

Moses Montefiore

Applied kinesiology

The Boy in the Plastic Bubble

Graham Cairns-Smith

Talk:Humphrey Bogart

Hughie Cannon

Marty_Robbins_discography

File:Red_Cloud3.jpg

Regards, AKD157 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2013 (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.