Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda Otto Barnes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Strong views on each side, with no clear consensus Nja247 08:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broda Otto Barnes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Broda Otto Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article on a physician who appears most notable for the fact that some of his more idiosyncratic ideas have been warmly embraced by the modern alternative medical community. There has been a persistent effort by anonymous IPs to insert The Truth into this article. Most recently, in response to my request for actual reliable sources, one of these IPs responded by essentially blanking and stubbing the article. While I was first inclined to view this as obviously WP:POINTy, I got to thinking that maybe the IP was right.

So for the record: I believe that we lack independent, reliable third-party sources dealing with this subject. Therefore, it's impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article on him, and the subject fails the notability criteria set forth in WP:N, WP:BIO, and WP:FRINGE. MastCell Talk 17:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to the newly arrived: Some editors seem to be voting without reading the debate. Please don't do that, or consider the article only in its present state of progress. Granted that the article was lightly referenced before one complaint about it was suddenly escalated to an AfD in less than 14 hours. Things have changed. The nom's stated case against notability, and claimed impossibility to write with reliable sources, has been steadily chipped away toward the vanishing point. Milo 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD, as I understand it, is not a process of "voting." Good advice here is to read the entire discussion (blechhh!!!) as suggested above, then express your recommendation and support it with your stated rationale and/or evidence. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only in Wikipedia can you have a vote that isn't a vote, its a delicious wikioxymoron. Everyone casts a vote similar to a jury proceeding based on presented evidence, then the closing administrator can ignore consensus and make a judicial decree based on their one true vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat. AfD, as I understand it, is not a process of "voting." Good advice here is to read the entire discussion (blechhh!!!) as suggested above, then express your recommendation and support it with your stated rationale and/or evidence. Please engage in the spirit of "what's best for the encyclopedia" instead of "this is what I desire." I realize I am violating my own advice by weighing in here. All I can do is contribute in good faith, and hope that others do the same. That is all. --Quartermaster (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD consensus is properly done in three parts: a counted popular vote (keep, delete, or neutral), a judged intellectual debate (the reason given and replies), and a reconciliation of the vote and the debate. Milo 01:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, there are some old books published by Barnes, but no reliable sources that discuss him as their subject. Therefore fails notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't look at the references before Mastcell removed them: There is an article on him and his research in Time magazine. I am surprised you didn't do a search and find it yourself in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A reference to some research he was a junior co-author on in 1936? I don't think that speaks at all to his notability. I'll say again, Barnes (not some old research) is not discussed as the subject in reliable sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability doesn't expire. He is listed as the first author in the paper published in Science. I don't know where you got "junior co-author" from. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Gale's Biography and Genealogy Master Index turns up zero hits (so this is searching print resources that might not be online). Also, Credo Reference online turns up zero hits. Agree his subject matter as expressed in his books might warrant some attention (I'm not sayin') but other than writing them, no hint that he is notable. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being excluded from a single reference work has ever been a Wikipedia criterion for exclusion. The rule has always been two or more reliable sources so that all the material in the article is reliably sourced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. These aren't "single" reference works, rather, they are online conglomerations of a larger number of traditional print volumes. BGMI is an online database of 12.7 million entries in over 3,400 volumes. Credo is a collection of standard reference sources, including biographical ones, of 3.2 million entries in over 414 standard reference titles. I'd hazard a guess that most of the material in these copyrighted sources won't show up in a Google search either. That's why I search them and add this information. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, exclusion from a source, or set of sources is not a Wikipedia rule for non-notability. Inclusion isn't a guarantee for inclusion. Who's Who wouldn't count since it is a "pay to play" system.
I'd rather not wikilawyer regarding "rules" for notability. Rather, I'm searching for evidence to bolster his notability using standard reference sources and not finding any. For the record, when you cite Who's Who you should indicate which of the many titles to which you are referring to by that phrase. Marquis Who's Who has traditionally NOT been "pay for play" (though I have my personal doubts). E.g., I am actually in a recent volume of the Marquis Who's Who in America and I never gave them a cent. In any case, my point is to present supporting evidence to justify my opinion that the gentleman is not notable. The hive mind will decide. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While you may not be wikilawyering you did vote to delete the article and gave as your reason: "Gale's Biography and Genealogy Master Index turns up zero hits ..." You didn't talk about the strength or weaknesses of the existing references that are used to support notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me note that we're not "voting" here. That's not the purpose of this process. As far as the strength or weakness of the existing article's references, that case is being made quite directly in other parts of this discussion. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Previous AfD was here (don't ask me why the talk page doesn't link to it). Kimchi.sg (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO from available evidence. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As even the nominator says, " some of his more idiosyncratic ideas have been warmly embraced by the modern alternative medical community. " In other words, notable alternative medicine. The test for notability is not whether they're mainstream, or likely to be correct! 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. PMID 447079 (abstract refers to him). I see from Web of medline 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 have added them to the article. (to be exact, I've restored them: they were in earlier versions, but were deleted, though they're certainly RSs. Though undoubtedly not intended by the nominator, the apparent technique of letting the article be reduced to a stub and then nominating it for AfD is often seen in attempting to discredit material relating to alternative medicine and some other fields also. (My own view of alternative medicine could not be more negative; I think most of it indistinguishable from quackery--but that does not affect notability).DGG (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC) (I added some material in italics here; I did not intend to make other than a general comment, and I apologize to Mastcell if my wording implied otherwise.) DGG (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note:there is an earlier AfD one year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broda O. Barnes, withdrawn by nominator as " Seems to be a notable subject, although their views appear nowadays to be outside the medical mainstream." The nominator this time apparently did not find it. DGG (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep Keep And please look at the article before Mastcell and an anonymous IP did massive trimming: here is the article when Mastcell nominated it. Here it is before the massive trimming for the AFD. I am restoring the article to the previous point. I cant think of anything more deceptive than deleting the TIME magazine article on him and his research, then claiming there are no mainstream references on him. A simple Google News Archive search turns up this. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those articles in the Google News search relate to random people who share one of his names, the rest are in the quack publication Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, which is not a reliable source for anything. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You math is a bit off. Of the first ten all concern him, and four are from the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients. The Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients is a reliable source, even if the theories they are expounding are not "true". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing "truth" with "verifiability". His theories don't have to be true to be in Wikipedia, or we wouldn't have articles on contradictory religions and philosophies. Google News archive references are inherently reliable, even when the information isn't true. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
random people who share his name, including his very rare first name, and happen to be working on exactly the same topic during the period he was active and promoting the same eccentric non-mainstream theory?. I've now put in his earlier papers, where he was working on basic physiology, and one can see the trend in his work to his later peculiar practical theories. Which of the ones I put in do you challenge? Yes, there was at least one later person with the name, and I did not include those few papers in my list. Neither did I include the about 20 abstracts of symposium presentations. The Townsend Letter, which is indeed a major quack publication, is suitable for showing what he said & what sympathetic people thought about it--but certainly not for showing validity of the work DGG (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia only requires two reliable third-party references to be notable. Time magazine isn't a quack publication. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Time article is not about Barnes, it is about the effect of hormones on fish sex organs. It mentions him once, in passing, as a junior member of a research team. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet it still counts toward notability according to Wikipedia rules. It isn't a "directory" listing which would be excluded from notability. The article discusses his research in the most popular of the popular press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral. A fairly thorough and NPOV article, but the lack of useful biographic sources makes this difficult. JFW | T@lk 19:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all for reminding me why I avoid AfD whenever possible. Look at the references in the current version. No, really, look at them. One to the Townsend Letter, the definition of an unreliable source. Seriously - the Townsend Letter literally warns the reader: "Information presented may not be factually correct", yet you're pillorying me and defending this as a suitable source for a supposedly serious encyclopedia. One to the Broda Barnes Foundation, which promotes his claims. One to an 80-year-old TIME article mentioning him in passing - the definition of "trivial coverage" which does not establish notability. Four references to obscure alternative-medicine tracts, which are used to substantiate most of the facts in the article. A reference to an article in a non-indexed alt-med journal which asserts a counterfactual view of hypothyroidism. A letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer - let me repeat that - a letter to the editor. Maybe I'll write a letter to the editor of my local paper about Barnes, and we can cite that as more evidence of notability. A low-quality popular-health opinion column from a newspaper. These sources suck. Any article built from these sources will suck. Most of all, people who restore this crappy sourcing along with aggressive implications of bad faith, who really have no excuse for not knowing better, suck. MastCell Talk 21:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, as it should be, verifiability and notability wins out over "truth". Truth only exists in mathematics. Wikipedia only concerns itself with verifiable facts. The only question to ask is: is he notable based on the available references that are independent of him? The answer is yes. Are his theories correct? It doesn't matter. Newtonian theories on alchemy were incorrect, the Nobel committee recognized people for discoveries that were later discredited, yet they are notable. If encyclopedias removed articles that weren't true, we would have no articles on religion or philosophy. Mastcell writes: "Maybe I'll write a letter to the editor of my local paper about Barnes, and we can cite that as more evidence of notability" The difference here is that a newspaper used its editorial power to decide to print or not print the letter. Authoring a piece of writing vs. being published is a quantum leap. "People who restore this crappy sourcing along with aggressive implications of bad faith, who really have no excuse for not knowing better, suck" is a personal attack and has no place here in Wikipedia. As a reminder of Mastcells "trimming" the article it went from this to this, judge for yourselves. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really discuss "truth" in my post, which makes your response a bit puzzling. I discussed verifiability and reliability of sourcing, as well as the "trivial coverage" exceptions in WP:N - all policy-based arguments. I don't think you're actually addressing the substance of these arguments. I have no problem covering incorrect claims; I do have a problem covering claims which have attracted no useable reliable sources. If you truly believe that letters to the editor of a newspaper are good sources, then I don't think we're likely to come to common ground - but I would suggest you are way outside the mainstream of this community and would be happy to solicit outside opinions on the use of such sources. You're also making a sloppy and incorrect assertion about my edits to the article - please check your diffs, fix them, and be a bit more diligent in the future. I left the article in this state; the stubbing you erroneously ascribe to me was actually performed by an IP. Judge for yourself. MastCell Talk 23:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I apologize to crediting the stubbing to you, you approved of it, didn't reverse it, and used it to bring the article to AFD. The sources used meet all criteria for reliability by Wikipedia and by Google. You seem to be looking for "scientific validity" of some sort. I know of no rules that exclude letters to the editor. Choosing to publish or not publish a letter is the essence of editorial control. Paid reporters don't have a monopoly on information, and aren't always correct. The New York Times prints a paragraph of corrections in every issue. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I didn't "approve" the stubbing (in fact, as the nomination statement makes clear, I considered it borderline disruptive), and if you're holding me personally responsible for every edit that I fail to reverse... well, does that sound reasonable to you? And then you mention what I call the Jayson Blair fallacy: the New York Times sometimes prints errors. The Townsend Letter sometimes prints errors. Therefore, the New York Times and the Townsend Letter are equivalently valuable encyclopedic sources. That doesn't make sense. MastCell Talk 03:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made no such statement or used any such logic. Again you are confusing "scientific validity" and "truth" with Wikipedia's notability and verifiability. Wikipedia doesn't care if his theories are right or wrong or if the New York Times or the Townsend Letter wrote about him. It requires at least two independent sources. Google decides what is a news source and what isn't. Once in a while Wikipedia blacklists a source, I have not seen Townsend Letter on that list. Alchemy is just as valid as Chemistry; and Astrology is as valid as Astronomy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • These arguments strike me as deeply flawed - Google doesn't decide which sources are "news sources". Wikipedia does draw a distinction between the New York Times and the Townsend Letter, or at least any Wikipedian with a basic understanding of WP:RS draws such a distinction. Alchemy and astrology have no relevance here; both are supported by numerous reliable sources and so are clearly notable and not liable to deletion. I'm not aware of what "blacklist" you're talking about; there is a spam blacklist, but it is not really intended to deal with questions of source reliability but only with editorial spamming and abuse. MastCell Talk 17:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep As the creator of the topic, I would like to remind everyone that this article was previously considered for deletion--and voted to be kept! This is a very interesting biographical article about a medical doctor with a minority view that is experiencing a modern revival of sorts. Look at the dates of the recent books and articles about him--all after the year 2000 even though his seminal work was in 1976. Dr. Stephan Langer M.D. in his recent book based on his work: "Solved: the Riddle of Illness" said that Dr. Barnes should have received the Nobel Prize (search inside the book on Amazon, page 166). Dr. Jacques Hertoghe M.D., 3rd generation from the world renowned Hertoghe family of endocrinologists spoke at his foundation multiple times:Videos of Dr. Hertoghe at Barnes Foundation and called Dr. Barnes "a real pioneer" Dr. Hertoghe M.D.: 2:50 min mark and furthermore asserted that "Dr. Barnes was right". Hardly unnotable! If there are concerns about the quality of the references or style of the article, please give us time to find better sources or fix them-thanks. Mkronber (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An alternate perspective: the fact that we can't find any reliable sources and are forced to go to obscure videos and cure-all books is clear evidence of a lack of notability. Is this really where the bar is for reliable sourcing? MastCell Talk 03:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of just pointing me to reliable sources and telling me to read it. Quote something in reliable sources that gives reasons why the sources used in the article are not reliable. Your using a straw man attack, picking out what you think is the weakest reference and using that to denigrate the entire article. You aren't making a distinction between references used for notability and those used for verifiability. Remember, only two references are required for notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think other contributers have already made more than adequate answer to that, and many of the references to his peer reviewed publications in mainstream medical journals have now been added to the topic. I am simply pointing out some additional highlights of his notability, and the fact that he was held in high regard by other world renowned doctors. Deleting someone in that catagory of notability and who has published so widely, is not appropriate I think. Your objections in your previous comments in the topic have been more related to what his views were and whether they agree with the mainstream thinking, but that is not an appropriate reason to remove someone from Wikipedia. That being said, I do appreciate your push for better referencing and that has been substantially improved thanks to other contributers. Mkronber (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, indispensably notable in the field of marginal hypothyroidism and low body temperature disorders. The article currently doesn't even mention Professor Barnes' academic career, which can establish notability through his established academic expertise as combined with the many citations to his best-known popular book.

Wikipedia:Notability_(academics): "Criterion 7 may also be satisfied if the person has authored widely popular general audience books on academic subjects provided the author is widely regarded inside academia as a well-established academic expert and provided the books deal with that expert's field of study."

Barnes' best known popular book, Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness cites many journal references[1], and according to Amazon.com has 77 references to it in subsequent books [2].
A biographic subchapter devoted to Broda Barnes, "A salute", was requested by readers, and is written by Stephen E. Langer, a Berkeley, California, physician who was personally acquainted with him. (Langer, 2000,2006).
Broda Otto Barnes was an undergraduate chemistry student at the University of Denver. Barnes became an instructor of physiological chemistry at Western Reserve University for two years and received an M.S. there in 1930. Barnes received his Ph.D. at University of Chicago in 1931 and taught physiology there for five years. The thyroid gland was an unwillingly assigned subject for his doctoral thesis that ironically caused him to become well-known in later life. Barnes completed his M.D. in 1937 at Rush Medical College, and for two years was Assistant Professor of Medicine at University of Illinois. "The brilliance of his research papers on thyroid function led to his being named chairman of the Health Education Department at the University of Denver" (Langer, 2000,2006). Later, Barnes was appointed professor affiliate in the department of physiology at Colorado State University, 1963-1968. During the nonacademic periods of his life Dr. Barnes was a practicing physician after 1937. Over 100 of Dr. Barnes' publications on the thyroid gland and related subjects appeared in leading scientific and medical journals and three books. See p.xvii; Solved the Riddle of Illness; Stephen E. Langer, M.D., James F. Scheer, 2000,2006
Barnes' method was introduced to a wide audience in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach by Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. This book was an NYT #1 best seller in 1982. As described in that book, Pearson apparently used the method to successfully resolve his case of low hand temperature.
Much of Dr. Barnes' scientific career biography and major research findings are contained in his book with technical details for physicians Heart Attack Rareness in Thyroid-Treated Patients. This rare and valued book currently sells used for $118-195, so it is difficult to find for citations.
Note to those who wonder why the Barnes methods didn't become mainstream - it has nothing to do with quackery. Barnes' seminal study of normal body temperature, based on a nationwide sample of military inductees, was published in 1942 just as everyone ceased paying attention due to the onset of WWII. As a result it was never introduced into the medical school curriculum. Later, he pointed out that the Barnes Basal Temperature Test costs nothing (and by my inference, there's no industry profit in it). It has the disadvantage that the physician must rely on accurate awaking temperature chart reports by the patient, which isn't necessarily easy or possible. Finally, Barnes pointed out that despite the observed advantages of thyroid extract over synthetic levothyroxine (T4) and synthetic levothyronine (T3), there simply isn't enough natural thyroid extract available to treat all the patients who need it. Milo 00:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These lines of argument are neither here nor there, but they seem misguided. WWII did not cause people to "stop paying attention" to medical developments, as anyone familiar with penicillin or the entire field of cancer chemotherapy is aware. Claiming that a major discovery was "suppressed" because it threatened "industry profits" is the hallmark of quackery - thyroid function tests cost very little, often < $20, and are much more accurate than temperature measurement, so it's ridiculous to assert a conspiracy when common sense dictates the use of blood tests. Finally, it's ridiculous to assert that the "difficulty" of relying on patient measurements precluded widespread use of the test. How do you think diabetes is managed? And, of course, there is no scientific evidence that natural thyroid extract is superior to levothyroxine - quite the opposite, since levothyroxine dose is standardized.

    But to go to the Wikipedia-specific arguments: these are not appropriate encyclopedic sources. The fact that a book cites a lot of references may be impressive to a superficial reader, but it's hardly an indicator of significance. By the way, you describe one such source as "rare and valued"; others might describe it as "obscure and out of print." MastCell Talk 03:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • On topic first: since you have retreated to complaints about sources, that is article talk page debate. I take it that you have conceded notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples #15 (quoted above), so how about withdrawing the AFD?
On side notes about educating you on this subject: Thyroid blood tests are always misleading when the problem of low body temperature and accompanying insufficiency of replicated protein synthesis in many body systems is not due to low thyroid hormone. Rather the problem may include, or be entirely, difficult-to-blood-test marginal hypoadrenalism. Historic confusion resulted from the fact that some of the four major (but 50-some minor) adrenal hormones contribute (IIRC) about 15% of body heat, rather than all heat being generated by thyroid hormones as classically assumed. When all thyroid blood tests are normal, some additional thyroid hormone apparently has an adrenergic replacement effect of raising low body temperature. Dr. Barnes discovered this factor later in his career when he began co-prescribing with thyroid, adrenergic low-dose daily prednisone in what he called the "combination treatment" (See Hypothyroidism: The Unsuspected Illness).
Please be more careful with use of quote marks, attribution, and representation. I didn't use that sup-word nor claim a conspiracy. Stupidity usually beats conspiracy, the medical-industrial complex has both, but this is neither. Methods that are overlooked, inconvenient to manage, and as well, not profitable, aren't likely to be used except when foreground methods fail and patients insist on using the alternative (as thousands have).
I didn't generalize by saying that WWII caused people to stop paying attention to all medical developments; penicillin was in any case a war necessity. It's only common sense that some research and its researchers were overlooked due to attention focused on the sudden war emergency. The 1942 date coincidence for Barnes' research being overlooked has to be considered as a persuasive explanation.
...there is no scientific evidence that natural thyroid extract is superior to levothyroxine - quite the opposite, since levothyroxine dose is standardized. IIRC, natural thyroid extract is also standardized. However, the superiority of thyroid extract treatment is a clinical observation of outcomes, not a scientific research result. That doesn't mean it's wrong, and it is biologically plausible. It's probably related to a combination of factors, say, better control due to the inclusion in natural extract of reverse T3 (rT3), or, perhaps that the minor included hormones are better replacement adrenergics when thyroid and adrenal together enter the cell nucleus to initiate protein transcription.
...it's ridiculous to assert that the "difficulty" of relying on patient measurements precluded widespread use of the test. Well, find a genuine mercury basal thermometer (1/10°F increments), follow Barnes' instructions and keep a chart for one month, and then we'll discuss your revised opinion after you have actual experience. Milo 08:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's a list of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test management issues: (1) Forgetting to shake down the thermometer the previous night (can't exercise before a basal reading). (2) Forgetting to do the test due to morning fog (can't go back to bed to get a basal reading). (3) Can't read the thermometer or write the chart due to eyes blurry or not adjusted to glasses at awaking. (4) Can't stay in bed for 10 minutes due to urgent need to urinate (typical with BPH). (5) Don't want to stay in bed for 10 minutes for enough days due to restlessness. (6) Thermometer shaking too tiring for fatigued or older people to keep up for enough days. (7) Falling asleep during the test and being late for work without a second alarm (and a snooze alarm is often only eight minutes). (8) Potential risk of breaking the armpit thermometer by rolling over on it while dozing. (9) Dropping the thermometer and breaking it due to morning incoordination or age. (10) Sometimes daily basal temperatures are so erratic that a month of measurements is needed to determine an average, which compounds the other issues.
Those were issues with mercury basal thermometers in Dr. Barnes lifetime. Digital basal thermometers do abate some of them. Diabetic glucometer use may be painful, but is easier to manage than BBTT because patients are fully awake. Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll forgive me if I decline to be educated on a medical topic by an anonymous editor citing "IIRC" as their source. MastCell Talk 19:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Says one anon to another?? You forgot to thank me for reporting integrity, by flagging as memory-conditional an obscure but possibly useful physiology statistic. Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think past that facile response for a second. The reason we insist on reliable, third-party sources is because we are all anonymous here. I'm not asking you to believe anything on the basis of my personal authority; I'm referring to scholarly sources, or the lack thereof. You, on the other hand, keep throwing out vague and far-fetched claims backed with "IIRC", or "According to user review #21 on Amazon.com...", or your personal credibility on the topic of thyroid hormone replacement. This is why we can't do without verifiable, reliably sourced material here, and why this article is going to be poor and unencyclopedic unless we find some. MastCell Talk 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources is for the article. Talk pages consensus forms from many other sources as well, notably including reasoned hypotheses which distinguish the plausible from the mythical. Educated opinion is not binary. It forms gradually from the weight of accumulating evidence, and incremental judgments as to the value of debate arguments. A talk page debate is sometimes like conversation in an academic hallway. Not everything worth contributing to a discussion among reasonable, educated people is worth documenting, but it's only fair to provide one's collegues with a hint as to how certain one is of the contribution. You asked (MastCell 07:47) "perhaps someone will enlighten me with a reference". Since I didn't recall it either, and wanted to know, I charitably assumed that you also wanted to know what Starr claims "type 2" to be. Pardon my assumption that you were actually interested in learning a reasoned alternative theory as opposed to mere reference triumph over infidels. Milo 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like to know whether there is any evidence of the existence of "type 2" hypothyroidism in the medical literature. Your lecture doesn't really answer that question. I'll make it easy for you and ignore the personalized rhetoric above; just drop a source here or on my talk page if you find one. MastCell Talk 05:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we agree about that. Milo 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I did the research. See Origin of "Type 2" below: Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminds me of Premarin which Wyeth has defended in court for 20 years, that any combination of steroids can not match the bioequivalance of the natural mixture. All of which have nothing to do with notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin of "Type 2" According to Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic, Dr. Barnes and Dr. Lawrence S. Sonkin MD, PhD, believed that "Peripheral Resistance Syndrome" was responsible for the vast majority of hypothyroidism (p.59).
According to a review of "Thyroid hormone resistance syndromes" (McDermott MT, Am J Med. 1993 Apr;94(4):424-32. Abstract), "Selective peripheral resistance to thyroid hormone (PerRTH)..." had been identified in one patient with "normal serum thyroid hormone and TSH levels but was clinically hypothyroid and improved with thyroid hormone administration. All of these disorders are probably more common than is generally recognized and are often misdiagnosed and inappropriately treated."
L Wikström, et al, (EMBO J. 1998 January 15; 17(2): 455–461. Abstract) "developed mice lacking the thyroid hormone receptor TR alpha 1." ... In addition to abnormal hearts, "The mice have a body temperature 0.5 degrees C [about 1ºF] lower than normal and exhibit a mild hypothyroidism, whereas their overall behavior and reproduction are normal."
"Type 1" and "type 2" hypothyroidism were defined by Dr. Mark Starr, MD, and Dr. Thomas H. Boc, DDS (p. 45). They were each other's patients. Dr. Boc had weight gain with fatigue, normal thyroid blood tests, basal temperature of 2ºF low, and a positive response to thyroid hormone within three months (p. xv). Dr Boc's two school age daughters also had a positive response to treatment (p. xvi). "Around 7% of Americans suffer Type 1 hypothyroism." "...blood tests do not detect Type 2 hypothyroidism [emphasis in original]. Type 2 hypothyroidism is usually inherited." (p. 45). Add 7% to the about 33% diagnosable only by symptoms or low basal temperature, and that gives about a 40% figure according to Dr. Barnes' survey research, which justifies Dr. Starr's use of the "epidemic" term in the book title. Milo 08:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments to closing admin I think this AFD is being based on whether Barnes ideas from the 1930s have an any scientific validity and are relevant today. I don't know, and Wikipedia shouldn't care. The inclusion of biographies is based solely on notability and verifiability, and this article meets both criteria easily. Some deception was involved in the AFD since the article was vandalized down to a stub just before the AFD and all the references were removed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the AfD nom, I specifically noted that the article had been stubbed by an IP, and even provided the diff so that people could easily see the before-and-after. You erroneously ascribed the stubbing to me and called me "extremely deceptive", suggesting you didn't read the nomination very carefully and have no qualms about assuming malice despite the fact that you haven't done basic due diligence about the facts on the ground. You then repeat these accusations despite the fact that I've corrected your erroneous assumption. You then lectured me about personal attacks. I won't even get into your charge of "vandalism."

      Mostly, I'm bothered by the misdirection. I have consistently made source-based and policy-based arguments for why this article should be deleted. You consistently assume that I'm arguing correctness of Barnes' views; that is not the basis of the deletion nomination. The closing admin can do what they like; this process has significantly depressed me with regard to the current state of Wikipedian discourse, and I'll unwatch the page now. MastCell Talk 18:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have expressed your opinion on reliable sources and denigrated the existing sources. You have not quoted any Wikipedia rule that excludes any of the references that I have restored to the article. It is a big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper thing would have been to restore all the properly sourced material, instead of using the now-stubbed article as an excuse to AFD based on the then-current condition. You also didn't include the link to the previous AFD on the talk page. Everyone who clicked to comment saw a one line article with no references, and that is very deceptive. And, as I have wrote many time before, you denigrate the current references as not being mainstream, which I interpret as you are looking for scientific validity. Wikipedia doesn't care about scientific validity, and has not declared any of the publications used in the current article as non-reliable, or has Google News. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone actually reading my nomination would be aware of the circumstances surrounding the stubbing; presumably, if deception were my goal, I would not have provided a handy diff in my nomination. Anyone in too much of a rush to vilify me to actually read the nomination probably shouldn't be commenting here. I didn't un-stub the article because I thought people might look askance if I put the article into my "preferred" state immediately before AfD'ing it. I thought that might lead people to accuse me of being - what's the word you keep using? ...deceptive. Silly me. MastCell Talk 22:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's a whole lot of posturing in this discussion but noone has addressed the concerns raised by MastCell. Frankly, there are no reliable third-party sources with non-trivial discussion of the subject, and this whole debate reeks of an attempt to make everything look 'all too difficult' so that the article is not deleted per policy. Hazir (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability issue was addressed about 22 hours before you posted. Notability seems to be completely satisfied per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples #15 – see my post (Milo 00:55, 29 April) below. My Reliable source check 0 post below addresses the claimed lack of reliable third-party sources. Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable source check 0: Hypothyroidism Type 2: The Epidemic by Mark Starr, M.D. (2005)
Since the the notability issue seems to be adequately addressed (see Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Notes_and_examples #15 quoted above with fulfilling sources), I've looked into the nominator's claimed issue of lack of "reliable third-party sources". Nom's claim is "impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article on him," implying not that the editing work hasn't been done, but that such sources don't exist.
Langer, 2000,2006, was referenced in the article last year, yet there was no mention of Professor Barnes' academic career until I researched it above: a routine notability citation having not the slightest controversy. It was possible; it just hadn't been done.
The substantial number of 77 citations at Amazon.com (see above) are likely to included nontrivial mentions and reviews of Barnes' research and practice methods. Sure enough, I clicked on Amazon.com Hypothyroidism Type 2, did a search inside for "Barnes", and got 103 hits. The author is board certified in both pain medicine and physical medicine/rehabilitation. His endocrinology credits are as a patient and then a student of New York Cornell endocrinologist Lawrence Sonkin, MD, Ph.D., with involvement in clinical studies on the relationship and treatment of hormone imbalances.[3]
Three references to one page of Starr, 2005 (p.174) existed last year, but given the nom's complaint of lack of reliable third party sources, Starr's 103 mentions are clearly underutilized. In over 250 pages, there's a pretty good chance that Barnes' name will be visible anywhere the book is opened. I'll make a reasonable deduction that 103 mentions is not only collectively nontrivial, but is a major theme of the work.
The result of my check appears to be adequate reliable secondary source references, which have simply not been utilized to back up the statements in Barnes' own sources. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion#Editing:

WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

Milo 07:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still don't think notability has been established, nor do some other participants less verbose than I, but I've already argued that to death. But let's be clear: the sources you're citing are not reliable sources, and they're not really independent of their subject, either.

Let's take Starr's book. You've omitted some key facts that may help to determine whether this is a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term. First of all, the book is published by New Voice Publishing, which appears to be a one-person operation ([4]). His book blurb repeats the claim that 40% of people suffer from "hypothyroidism type 2". Not only is the 40% number widely at variance with current understanding, but there is to my knowledge no such medical condition as "type 2" hypothyroidism (perhaps someone will enlighten me with a reference). So the book makes claims which are widely viewed as incorrect. That is not to say that the book or the author are "wrong", but it is to say that this is an inappropriate source for an encyclopedia aspiring to be a serious, respectable reference work.

Since people apparently think that I'm just making things up, I'll quote some of the relevant passages from WP:V, which is a core policy here:

Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.

I don't see any sources meeting this definition here, or in the article. The Broda Barnes foundation is not third-party, and you might be hard-pressed to demonstrate a reputation for accuracy in their claims. Starr's book is published by an obscure one-person publishing operation, and makes claims which would not stand up to third-party scholarly scrutiny. The Townsend Letter fails on all counts.

Maybe you don't understand my objection, or I haven't phrased it clearly enough. I don't want more Google hits on Barnes' name. I want more... reliable... sources - more reliable third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. But when I ask for them, I get more video links from the Barnes Foundation, or self-published books making questionable medical claims, along with a bunch of not-so-veiled abuse. I did actually do a Google search; I saw those sources, but they don't meet the criteria set forth in this site's policies. Do you understand? I made a real effort to find "reliable third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I didn't find any, and I don't think you have either. MastCell Talk 07:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again it seems its gets down to "scientific validity". You deny it but everything you write denigrating the sources gets to that point. Google requires two sources, there are more than two sources, both under editorial control, the requirement from Wikipedia for reliability. Is it your premise that Mcgraw Hill has no editorial control with their two page biography of him, or that the biography at the University of Chicago is a sham? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are also using the straw man argument by picking the weakest publisher of the dozen references and ignoring The University of Chicago and McGraw Hill. Wikipedia requires two independent, and there they are. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well-studied in WP:V/WP:RS. I just don't agree with some of your claims under it.
Absent evidence of fraud or wild implausibility, it doesn't greatly matter for reliable sourcing whether anyone at WP thinks the 40% number is widely at variance with current understanding, or whether there is or isn't any such medical condition as "type 2" hypothyroidism. Starr says there is, Starr is a licensed medical doctor, and doctors historically name the conditions they discover.
Btw, according to a Amazon.com reviewer found on a page I cited previously, "type 2" is a thyroid hormone resistance phenomenon. Without reading the evidence, it seems biologically plausible as a third category of conditions causing low body temperature that might respond to additional thyroid above population normal blood level.
New Voice Publishing claims to have a team, albeit headed by one or two Ph.D.s, offering a substantial list of publishing services. There are some indeterminate number of people involved, possibly part-timers contracted by the job. I think NVP makes it clear that they intend to prevent censorship by the medical system, but it's difficult to determine the difference between insufficient fact-checking and avoiding censorship. I'd say send this one to the Reliable sources noticeboard.
Until then, 76 more sources to go...
What's your objection to Langer, 2000,2006? Milo 09:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're clearly not understanding each other. I'm not talking about what I think; I've presented actual, peer-reviewed, reliable sources demonstrating that 40% is ridiculously high. Regardless of what you, personally, find "biologically plausible", there is no such condition as "type 2 hypothyroidism". Is this term mentioned anywhere in the reputable medical or scientific literature? If you're seriously going to cite Amazon.com user reviews, then I don't think you have any respect for this site's policies on verifiability or reliable sourcing, and I'm wasting my time. A low-profile book from an obscure (vanity?) publishing house which makes outlandish or extreme claims is not an appropriate source for this encyclopedia; it fails the criteria I've listed above.

You've dumped a bunch of Google hits on the page without performing the most basic evaluation of whether these sources actually meet encyclopedic standards, and now you're demanding that I "refute" each one of these in detail. Then you tell me I'm arguing my personal opinions, when I'm citing actual reliable sources and you're pointing me to Barnes Foundation video clips, Amazon.com user reviews, and your personal views on biological plausibility. You don't seem to understand that 103 mentions in an unreliable source is no more useful than 1 mention in an unreliable source. Why don't you explain how a one-line mention in a 1932 Time article is anything other than "trivial" coverage? Or how Langer's book qualifies under WP:V and WP:RS? MastCell Talk 19:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be partly confusing my posts with those of another editor.
"reliable sources demonstrating that 40% is ridiculously high." No problem. The data are what they are using two different diagnostic methods. Provided it's placed in context, I've consensed to that entry at the article talk page.
The next few comments I've addressed in previous theads.
"You've dumped a bunch of Google hits on the page..." Perhaps you're referring to the Amazon.com 77 citations list here.
"...demanding that I "refute" each one of these in detail." There isn't much more chance to do this after an unfairly successful AfD, especially one bearing an odious resemblance to the anti-alternative medicine technique DGG described above.
Assuming your good faith, I guess you should have done more research before you brought this article to AFD under the claim that "we lack independent, reliable third-party sources dealing with this subject. Therefore, it's impossible to write a useful, neutral encyclopedia article."
Ok, you screwed up and made a hasty generalization that you can't readily prove, so the intellectually honest thing to do is withdraw the AFD, as I've already asked you to do. Milo 22:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin will draw their own conclusions. I suspect the article will be kept; the sheer weight of verbiage here is probably enough to guarantee that. You haven't actually convinced me of your correctness or my wrongness, so withdrawing the AfD would be intellectually dishonest of me and, at most, a concession to the aggressive bullying tactics that you and a few others are employing here. MastCell Talk 05:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak for anyone else, but you've been treated fairly by me. Declaring yourself a victim doesn't improve your position of being in denial about your superficial pre-AfD source analysis. Using the absolute term "impossible" makes your hasty generalization transparently obvious.
Much more importantly, this isn't about placebo water, structural integration, or even the merits of supplemental antioxidants. I'm disappointed that Dr. Barnes, an honored allopathic medical researcher, was unable to convince you that his basal temperature discoveries could save many lives at very low cost, into the foreseeable future. Milo 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable source check 1: The Townsend Letter, the Examiner of Alternative Medicine (published since 1983)
(DGG 16:49): "a major quack publication"; (MastCell 07:47) "The Townsend Letter fails on all counts." With over a dozen mentions here of the Townsend Letter reference, I decided to take a look at it. With the "major quack publication" talk I was expecting something awful. (IMHO of the treatment articles, some do quack, others are reportedly useful to many people but I'm not a responder, while perhaps half of them appear to be serious discussions of unproven yet biologically plausible healing alternatives.)
To my surprise Townsend Letter is a nominally peer-reviewed publication, has a staff of nine including two MDs, 20 additional columnists including four medical doctors and two Ph.D.s, plus another MD and Ph.D. as advisors.[5] I recognized one columnist's name, Jacob Teitelbaum, M.D., as a respected specialist in the frustrating chronic fatigue and fibromyalgia syndromes, where the mainstream allopaths dropped the ball.
It's not fair to call Townsend Letter a quack publication – it's an alternative health and medicine publication, for treatment proponents that may/do include some quacks, and activist opponents of mainstream treatments. The latter might be wrong, but they're not quacks, and the mainstream press also criticizes risky medical treatments. Occasionally, letters are published with feedback from persons who can opine whether treatments are cures or quacks. As noted above, Townsend Letter disclaims: "information presented may not be proven or factually correct".
For Wikipedia articles, Townsend Letter has adequate staff for routine fact-checking to avoid libels, like the proper attribution that x really did say y. Townsend Letter is a reliable source for notability, as well as statements reported in the proper context of claims and counterclaims. Curiously, due to the disclaimer, an MD/PhD-quote from Townsend Letter has no greater status than a seeming quack-quote, because the MD/PhD's claim might also not be proven or factually correct. To make this point clear, note that an otherwise credible MD/PhD might have misspoken, but Townsend Letter disclaims that they will necessarily rectify the error. Milo 04:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Definitely does not qualify under WP:PROF unless citation indices for old articles are even less complete than I think they are. The library holdings bring me close, but without reliable sources describing Barnes or the work ... - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Definitely"? I suggest striking that statement. You overlooked Wikipedia:PROF#Criteria #7: "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. ...¶ For people who have made substantial impact outside academia but in their academic capacity, the appropriate criteria for that sort of notability apply as an alternative—as for a person notable for popular writing in her subject." I didn't cite WP:PROF #7 earlier because I think #Notes_and_examples #15 better states the same notability case. Really, we're well past the notability issue; Barnes is substantially to widely cited for seminal academic and practice work in his field.
Your concern about sourcing has more validity, but it's too soon to draw closure at this early stage, with dozens of potential sources still not vetted for reliability. Milo 20:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Milomedes (talk · contribs), have you ever considered the advantages of not badgering your fellow debaters? I respectfully suggest that, as notability is precisely why we are having this discussion, the point is moot rather than settled. There is plenty of potential for disagreement among rational, well-informed editors ... please consider that potentially others have exercised due diligence before expressing their conclusions. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 08:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Impressively over the top. Dilligence accepted, you still made a mistake. Because mistakes can wrongly influence other editors, I pointed it out and asked you to fix it. That's how AfD works and it's not badgering.
If it's your position that you did not make a mistake, feel free to explain how "Definitely does not qualify under WP:PROF" squares with the fact that Professor Barnes' cited popular writing did have substantial impact outside academia per #7. Milo 08:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to me that while the article lists sources, that ones that are actually reliable sources independent of the subject don't address the subject in the proper detail to count towards establising notability, they are more just passing mentions and whatnot. Spiesr (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia rule is that every fact has to come from a reliable source. What fact, or facts, in the article are not reliably sourced? I think you are confusing reliable sources and sources used for notability. Notability requires two sources independent of the subject and we have a biography from Mcgraw Hill, and one from the University of Chicago. His autobiographical material sources all other facts. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable source check 2: Solved: The Riddle of Illness ; 4th edition McGraw-Hill (July 20, 2006) [6]
Amazon.com search inside: 68 hits for "Barnes"; the nontrivial mentions are possibly a major theme of the book. McGraw-Hill is a major publisher, per WP:V: "books published by respected publishing houses".
Author's credentials: Stephen E. Langer, M.D., received his medical training at New York College of Medicine in Buffalo, New York sometime prior to 1982. He has a private practice in Berkeley, California. He had become a well-known thyroid disorder practitioner sometime prior to 1988, when he shared a speakers platform with Dr. Barnes at a "symposium for medical doctors in Texas on the subject of hypothyroidism." (Page 67)
The following is a list of cited quotes covering some major discoveries and issues for which Broda Otto Barnes is notable:
• Notability:
Page 4: "I am thankful that I stumbled across the monumental research in this area of Broda O. Barnes, MD, PhD, one of the world's foremost authorities on the thyroid gland."
Page 244: "A clinical researcher in hypothyroidism for half a century, Dr. Barnes published more than a hundred papers on his investigations in the most reputable medical journals."
• Not an alternative practitioner:
Page 47: ... "Barnes never thought of himself as a maverick."
• Significant minority of professional medical consensus:
Page 23: "This is not my finding alone. Dr. Barnes and more than one hundred of his physician followers have discovered the same phenomenon."
• Accuracy of Barnes Basal Temperature Test:
Page 244: "An accurate way to diagnose hypothyroidism is by means of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test. More than a hundred years of research has established a definite relationship between subnormal temperature, no matter how slight, and hypothyroidism."
• Mainstream listing of the Barnes Basal Temperature Test:
Page 12: "Out of these experiments came the Barnes Basal Temperature Test, which, for many years had been listed in the Physician's Desk Reference (the PDR)."
• Typical superiority of natural thyroid extract treatment:
Page 44: "In the medical practices of Dr. Barnes and myself, natural thyroid hormone worked better in almost all cases."
The nom has stated under his WP:V quotation above: "I don't see any sources meeting this definition here, or in the article." By my inspection (Langer 2000,2006) Solved: The Riddle of Illness is satisfactory to meet the quoted reliable source requirements. Furthermore, it has been an article source since last year, so I request the nom to strike "any" as being an error of his inadequate sourcing research prior to bringing this AfD.
Milo 07:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Milo and DGG. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as significant variety of sources presented above and incorporated into the article demonstrate that the article's subject is verifiable; the shear number of sources and their nature as discussed above by DGG and Richard Arthur Norton further suggests that the subject is sufficiently notable for inclusion in a paperless encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG. I doubt that there is not significant third-party coverage of someone who seems to be fairly notable in AltMed. I can't read the WashPost article. Seems to be the progenitor of several even currently-popular AltMed thyroid methods like the underarm temp. and iodine skin absorption. Also, clearly he published in Science in 1936 and in a variety of mainstream journals later. At least 153 books mention him. Just because these books aren't scholarly doesn't mean they don't demonstrate notability. And even if there isn't third-party coverage on him, there is at least mainstream coverage of his views which can be added. II | (t - c) 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the quality of the science is not this issue. Wikipedia is neutral about that. But in any case, he had publications in JAMA and journals of similar orthodoxy.DGG (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wow. What an incredibly looooooong discussion. I see it boiling down to this: Notability IS notability, and we are not here to decide if its quackery {which could even then be notable). In this case we have a well-written, encyclopedic and well-sourced BLP about an individual who was a noted author and who was in numerous peer reviewed journals. Even if his views are not well-received currently, they were in the 30s, and Notability is not temporary. Also, I am quite concerned with the deconstruction done by an anonymous SPA immediately before the nomination, leaving nothing but a stub. Doesn't seem quite cricket, and feels like the SPA was stacking the deck. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not qualified in medicine but I have read the article and the comments above and while some of the comments following both "keep" and "delete" votes are thoughtful a lot seem unthinking. ¶ The meat of the article appears to be in two sections, titled "Diagnosis of hypothyroidism" and "Treatment of hypothyroidism". There are a couple of respectable-looking sources between them, but these are for the accepted view and not for anything about Barnes. Most of the other sourcing for both of these sections is Barnes or his foundation. True, the article is worded fastidiously here, with Barnes's claims labeled as such within the main body text (and not only the notes). This sourcing seems to me adequate for supplementary purposes, inadequate as anything more. As for the other sourcing in these two sections, it's from the Jamaica Gleaner (a newspaper, not a medical journal) and the books Living Well with Hypothyroidism (Harper Collins), Your Thyroid and How to Keep It Healthy (Hammersmith Press), and Hypothyroidism Type 2 (New Voice Publications). Let's look at each of the three. ¶ Harper Collins has a biography page for Shomon, author of Living Well; this doesn't mention any medical qualification. It points to thyroid-info.com as her website; this again says nothing about her, though it has a load of stuff that you can buy. Indeed, the WP article on her says she has a BA in international finance: again, no mention of medical training. ¶ Your Thyroid -- from a publisher whose current bestseller appears to be Magic in Practice: Introducing Medical NLP: the Art and Science of Language in Healing and Health -- is by somebody who was previously a GP; there's no hint that he's received any Barnes-unrelated training in the thyroid. (There are lots of ads for stuff you can buy, though.) ¶ The amazon.com page on Hypothyroidism Type 2 (subtitle: "The Epidemic") sports a product description announcing this is An astonishing book revealing the cause and successful treatment for the plague of illnesses affecting western civilization; including obesity, heart attacks, depression, diabetes, strokes, headaches, chronic fatigue, and many more. "Astonishing" indeed: Why haven't we all heard of this book? Google suggests that "New Voice Publication " has published a grand total of three (3) books, the other two being a pair (by one author) on hysterectomies. ¶ So the meat of this article has very dubious sourcing. Yet the article ends with a list of publications whose relationship with the main text is unclear but that serve to make Barnes look a lot more substantial and that therefore make his ideas about the thyroid -- whether or not related, whether or not today worth even a passing mention in the medical literature -- look a lot more credible. ¶ In short, delete in view of the low probability that reliable sourcing will be found for Barnes's main claims to fame. -- Hoary (talk) 06:54, 4 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Broda_Otto_Barnes&oldid=1069664299"