Deletion of Yoshiaki Omura

Comment: attractive though it is to debunk this obvious charlatan, 500 Googles and nothing evident on Scholar, with only two neutral references (NZ disciplinary and US court record),  suggests a failure to meet 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: This article is about Dr. Omura and his invention, the BDORT procedure. Both have more than amply sourced notability. Specifically, there are multiple international symposia, as well as 'continuing education' courses, held at (but not ''by'') mainstream institutions. All of this is well sourced in the article. Also, the BDORT procedure itself was subject to review by a highly qualified medical ethics review panel in NZ. They concluded that BDORT has 'no scientific validity'. IMO, the combination of a highly promoted medical procedure that is claimed by its promoters to diagnose and cure everything from cancer to the common cold, coupled with a clear verdict by an ethics review panel of 'no scientific validity', all well sourced, more than meets WP's |notability and |sourcing criteria. I don't think we have to resort to tossing in inflammatory 'pseudoscience' or 'quackery' adjectives (which directly label its promoters as charlatans) to allow the article to stay. It can stay as long as it meets WP's objective inclusion criteria which I think it easily does
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)