Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index of Central Obesity


 * 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   merge to Abdominal obesity. Spartaz Humbug! 03:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Index of Central Obesity

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Disputed prod. An article about a newly suggested way to identify obesity, written by the person who created the concept. It does not appear to me to have wide enough traction or coverage anywhere to warrant an article yet. Kevin (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep?? I'm not an expert on this type of article, but it would appear to be covered by multiple reliable sources ( and  for example), and at the very least, pass under the strictest interpretation of general notability.  Whether or not it is an effective "novel parameter in identifying central obesity" or not, I have no idea, but it is being discussed and studied.  Would appear any issues with it are a matter of editing not deleting.  If there is a flaw in my perspective here, please feel free to hand me a clue.  Dennis Brown (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to take a look through the notability guidelines for a specific area that deals with stuff like this, but my chain of thought looking at the low citation count on the original article was that it had not yet established sufficient notability. (It is certainly verifiable, I just have notability concerns.) If it looks like I'm wrong, I'll withdraw the nom.  Be back in a bit.  Kevin (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't actually find a specific relevant section anywhere. My concern is essentially just that massive numbers of similar parameters are discussed in a couple of papers each every year without achieving any lasting notability - Similar thinking to that behind WP:ACADEMIC except that that guideline deals only with people, not concepts.  I'll look around some more, and I'll withdraw the nom if I can't find anything.  Kevin (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If all the links I could have found were no more than scientific abstracts, then I would agree, but I found at least two talking about the ramifications, (honestly, I'm lazy, I probably could have found more). Just using WP:GNG, that seems to pass muster.  Of course, it isn't always so simple, which is why I qualified my keep !vote.  Regardless, I don't think it will hurt anyone for it to park here for a week and allow a wider discussion.  Surely someone will pipe in that knows more about these types of articles than you or I, or at least think they do ;)   Dennis Brown (talk) 22:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's definitely looking like my original nomination was based on something I assumed was present in the notability guidelines that wasn't actually present, but per your suggestion I'll leave it up for other people to comment. Kevin (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the first link you dug up suggests a separate reason why this article may need to be deleted - in it, "index of central obesity" is used as a genericized term to refer to measures of centrals obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. This would suggest that info on this particular measure may be appropriate to include on the general article about central obesity (where ways to measure central obesity are already discussed) but not as a standalone article.  Kevin (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge it to Abdominal obesity. Hardly stands alone (not generally adopted, sparsely cited, original in a non-peer reviewed journal), but a discussion of this idea alongside other measures of central obesity would be useful. "Index of central obesity" isn't a phrase solely limited to Parikh's idea so the redirect is a good one anyhow. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Merge per Fences&Windows. I couldn't find any use of the phrase as a working term. If fits perfectly with the target subject, and there is good content to include. I also support the redirect - frankieMR (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Changed keep to merge At this point, there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage. It can always be forked later.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep there are several journal articles in different journals and by different authors on this topic. Article needs some clean-up, but looks like the beginning of something good. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 13:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at the first link Dennis posted, "index of central obesity" is used there as a generic term to refer to measures of central obesity, and not as a proper noun or in reference to this specific measure. To me, this strongly suggests that it would be appropriate to talk about this particular measure on the general article about central obesity, but not as a standalone page, and especially not as a standalone page titled as it currently is.  Kevin (talk) 20:07, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * those articles are from 1996 & 2001. Parikh introduced ICO in 2007. The name uses generic words, but English allows for a difference between index of central obesity in lowercase letters as a generic description and Index of Central Obesity in title case as a specific index. The inventor of a thing usually gets to pick the name unless a different name becomes more widely used. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 20:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Baseball   Watcher  22:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete can be recreated if it ever becomes widely used at all. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's from Medical Hypotheses. No evidence that it is in widespread use. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * even though medical hypotheses is not a peer-review journal, a peer review was published in a separate journal . —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 19:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment If we’re going to make an article about every topic that has been the topic of a peer reviewed journal I have a lot of editing to do. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * one example of wider use is Veigas et al.: "Oxidative Stress in Metabolic Syndrome". : "A detailed clinical examination and family history was taken of all the subjects. Blood Pressure (BP) was measured by standard methods. Anthropometric measurements including height, weight, waist (WC) and hip circumferences (HC) were measured as per standard procedures. BMI, waist: hip ratio (WHR) and index of central obesity (ICO) (WC/height) (14) were calculated." the full article is freely available. —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 13:10, 26 May 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.