Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test

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The result of the debate was Keep - nomination was withdrawn. Proto||type 08:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. Philosophus ^T 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn --Philosophus ^T 10:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --Philosophus ^T 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --Philosophus ^T 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do withdraw it. The usual way is to strike-through the original nomination by surrounding it with <s>...</s> and to put after it "Nomination withdrawn. ~~~~". --Lambiam^Talk 08:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. Fucyfre

This article clearly stands up to Wikipedia criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Wikipedia practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Wikipedia policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Wikipedia criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include information, facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting information - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter

Comment - could we get some more opinions here please? So far there's one keep vote (from me) and that's the lot, since the nominator is now neutral. The talk page for the entry is now expanding. With respect to Richard Malter, the size of this is becoming unmanageable. - Richardcavell 06:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn so the article will be kept. -Will Beback 19:34, 18 May 2006 (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.