Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Booth


 * 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

David A. Booth

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete. Claim of notability but does not seem to quite meet WP:PROF. Note that all the refs are from the subject himself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The text of the article makes it sound like he should be eligible under WP:PROF criteria #1, but the sources all go to the research he is claimed to be notable for, not any independent sources confirming that he is in fact notable. If the claims already in the article could be properly sourced, I would withdraw my weak delete. Monty 845 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. His work is briefly commented on He has a brief comment in this New Scientist article. I searched ProQuest as well (I'm not sure whether I should directly link to the page or not) and found a short article by Helen Barklam in the Sunday Mercury that directly profiled his research. I also found an article by John Revill in the Birmingham Post about his work. The man seems to be notable to me. Deyyaz [ Talk 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is still insufficient to meet WP:PROF IMHO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, I believe that it at least meets the WP:GNG criteria per the inclusion or Presumed criteria. WP:PROF does not necessarily supersede the general notability requirements.Deyyaz [ Talk 05:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His work isn't commented on in that New Scientist article, he's commenting on the work of others. But I've just found an interesting Times Higher Education article concerning him. Qwfp (talk) 09:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the mistake, no deception was intended. Good find with the Times Higher Education article Qwfp, the content jives quite well with the coverage I have found elsewhere. (I'm not sure if this will be useful or not, but I'll provide the links anyway for anyone who can access them. the Barklam article and the Revill article]) Both of them highlight a particular study Booth was undertaking. Deyyaz [ Talk 15:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. GS h index is 25, which passes WP:Prof even for a fairly well cited field. pretty good considering he had so much difficulty getting funding. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep per Xxanthippe and the evidence cited above. Deyyaz [ Talk 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - A lead including a line like this is always a bad sign: "The notability of his contribution to food intake-related research can be measured by 146 entries on PubMed alone." No opinion as to inclusion-worthiness. Somebody please improve this article if it is kept. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'm not impressed by the number of citations in Google Scholar. And I'm very unimpressed by the gibberish/jargon tone of the article. "He joined forces with the human rights activist Phil Booth to advocate culturally and biologically realistic education in personal tailoring of changes in specific patterns of behaviour in order to slow the increase in prevalence of obesity." Please! --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google Scholar citations appear to be enough to meet WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1, while the article concerning him in the Times Higher Education is an independent, reliable source to back up the non-independent but reasonably realiable biographical details in his personal webpage and ensure an article about him can be verifiable. Also appears to meet WP:AUTHOR criterion 3 as his 1994 monograph Psychology of Nutrition was the subject of independent reviews in several reputable academic journals: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Nutrition Bulletin, Patient Education and Counselling. The last of these says "The author ... is an expert on the regulation of appetite and satiety and writes with great authority on this subject." I agree with Carrite's and MelanieN's criticisms of some of the content of the current article though, so suggest removing the sentence about PubMed and tagging with cleanup-jargon. Qwfp (talk) 08:02, 31 March 2011 (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.