Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes (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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/Broda O. Barnes
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

On the same grounds as the previous nomination for deletion which resulted in no consensus after a very long debate and fails WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:FRINGE. Rohedin (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete despite edits by MastCell, myself and others to bring this up to scratch, it still falls far short. It seems this is because the subject does actually fail WP:NOTE, as effort was made to find sources to meet our criteria. Verbal chat
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, for the same reasons I gave in my earlier nomination. Hopefully this AfD will be somewhat less of a clusterfuck. I admit to some concern about the nominator's history, which seems a bit odd, but if we're discussing the merits of the article then I still think it fails notability criteria. MastCell Talk 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems like he passes WP:PROF: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" is passed as his 1976 book Hypothyroidism: the unsuspected illness has oodles of attention from the natural medicine field. His work is now outdated, he has been latched onto by fringe groups for a long time (this from 1980), and his work on hypothyroidism has been criticised (e.g. ), but WP:FRINGE cannot be a reason to delete an article about a person, no matter how ridiculous the fan-boy adoration by CAM advocates gets. You want to delete this because you don't like quacks quoting him, not because of a genuine lack of notability. He published in JAMA, The Lancet, Science, JBC, and other medical and scientific journals a number of times over several decades from the '30s to the '70s, presented at FASEB,, and his work was prominent enough to be quoted in the abstract of a review in Geriatrics in 1979 on hormones and heart disease:. He was quoted as a medical expert in the press over several decades, e.g. . Much of the coverage of him and his work is hiding behind pay-walls and on dead trees in libraries, so do watch out for FUTON bias. Have a browse through this pre-1990 book search to get a feel for how much coverage he received over the decades: Also, the nominator is a new account intimately familar with Wikipedia processes such as AfD, ANI and RfCs. I wonder if they need to be on the receiving end of another TLA: SPI?  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. The difficulty is to use the available reliable sources (dated, often not easily available, and often primary sources) in the face of massive attention from unreliable sources (which happen to recent and online). I have generally found this a nearly impossible road to navigate, at least on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you'll volunteer to help bring the article up to speed with the sources you've found, and watchlist it going forward, then I'll change my !vote to keep. Regarding FUTON bias, I have to admit I became disheartened after searching extensively - in the library - for Barnes' 1945 Lancet publication (which our article assures us exists). It does not exist, as best I can tell - although during the search I came across some fascinating work from 1945. Anyhow... MastCell Talk 22:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm, did he play pro ball? Needless to say, if Dr. Barnes had been a professional athlete, we would not be having this debate.  Wikipedia is still heavier on dumb articles than on smart ones, in part because we have more contributions on entertainment and sports than we do about academics and medicine, and in part because the latter have a much higher threshold to get over.  It appears to be a well-sourced and remarkably balanced article about a physician who was notable or infamous, depending on point of view, for the information that he gathered and disseminated on hyperthyroidism, endocrine function, and human health.  Mandsford 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable alternative medicine. The books were of widespread significance also at the time published: From WorldCat Identities: His main book, 3 eds. in english and chinese, still held in 423 libraries. For popular medicine books from the 1970's, that's significant. Review in the Townsend Letter, a major source for alternative medicine--unreliable for the actual state of medical knowledge, but a good source for what's notable within its field; Modern reference to it it in a reliable journal. Kent, S. "Hormones and heart disease.: Geriatrics. 1979 Jun;34(6):97-102.  (not just a casual mention: the abstract refers to him). I see from Web of Science & Pubmed that, besides the books, he published in major medical journals--Medline lists 12, WebofScience some additional ones. the journals include : several in JAMA, 2 in Science (journal) one in Lancet, several in American Journal of Physiology. I restored them to the article at the time of the previous AfD.   DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 9 June 2010 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.