Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroshi Motoyama


 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panyd (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hiroshi Motoyama

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can not find any reliable references. No books mention his work and the only websites that do are his own or new age blogs. Goblin Face (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Yuasa references Motoyama in his "The Body, Self-Cultivation, and Ki-Energy", which is in English. Corazza also references him in "Near-Death Experiences: Exploring the Mind-Body Connection." Conley's "Sahaja Yoga" also explicitly works with Motoyama's writings. Bourne's "Global shift" addresses Motoyama too. At least a dozen books on the chakras reference him as well. A cursory jstor search reveals at least three more references to Motoyama in reputable academic journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.234.34 (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Those books on "Ki-energy" and the "Mind-Body" connection are unreliable fringe new age books. "Chakra" books are not reliable either. You then claim "academic" journals mention his work and cite JSTOR, but do a search for "Hiroshi Motoyama" in JSTOR and not a single paper comes up. Basically no reliable references cite his work and there's no critical coverage of his claims or mention of his work in any mainstream or notable sources. Goblin Face (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Goblin Face (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just did a search on JSTOR and a number of articles came up. None, however, as far as I could tell, talk about him for more than a sentence or two. But here are some:
 * The Aura of Wellness: Subtle-Energy Healing and New Age Religion; Author(s): Catherine L. Albanese; Source: Religion and American Culture: A Journal of Interpretation, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Winter,2000), pp. 29-55 Mentioned on p. 31.
 * Curing with Kaji: Healing and Esoteric Empowerment in Japan; Pamela D. Winfield; Japanese Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1 (2005), pp. 107-130 Mentioned on p. 123
 * Sahaja Yoga by Judith Coney; Review by: Christopher Key Chapple; International Journal of Hindu Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Apr., 1999), pp. 93-95 This is the most promising because it is a book review that faults the author for not citing Motoyama
 * JSTOR also mentions that he is cited in the book Yoga, karma, and rebirth, which can be searched on Google Books:
 * Note that all three journals and the book are published by respectable academic publishers. I am not sure myself at this time how to evaluate people bordering on WP:FRINGE for WP:GNG, but I first wanted to mention that it is not true that he is not cited in JSTOR. Michitaro (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

For Japanese:


 * Comment When I do a search for his name in JSTOR it says "No results found" . Not sure what is going on there but the references you cited don't appear to discuss his work in any detail. I would like to know others thoughts on this. Goblin Face (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's odd. When I click on the link you gave, I did get the results I mentioned above. Anyway, you are right that one of the issues is whether these RS--and they are clearly RS--are "significant coverage" per WP:GNG. I would lean to saying no, but I do recognize that people in the legitimate academic community are sometimes quoting him as an authority, not as a fringe figure. Also, while there are plenty of WP:FRINGE works on "ki" and "chakra," they are also some very legitimate works as well, because those are long-standing, accepted concepts in the East, so we have to be careful of dismissing all of them at once. I also added the Japanese source template because he might be discussed in legitimate Japanese sources as well. I am undecided now, but I feel some more expert opinion is needed, so I will add deletion sorting with religion and Hinduism. Michitaro (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Michitaro (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

you search for the publisher The content 
 * Weak keep The books look flaky, and when I investigated one (with the grandiose and highly improbable title of "Measurements of Ki Energy Diagnoses & Treatments: Treatment principles of Oriental Medicine from an Electrophysiological Viewpoint"), the publisher appears as "California Inst. for Human Science", and a google search for this shows up *this* page (I mean Hiroshi Motoyama). So it's all a whirlpool. His Japanese WP page looks OK, but I see that his J publications appear to be from 宗教心理出版 (sounds like a real publisher), but again I ended up at Rakuten Books searching for this publisher, and in the first two pages (40 hits?), only 4 were not by him, and one of these had his name in the title. Even so, I think inclusiveness calls for this to stay. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There is no reason why fringe operators should not have Wikipedia BLPs if they are notable enough. The subject's book has 92 cites on GS. My feeling is not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 06:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:32, 2 April 2014 (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.