Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maureen Storey


 * 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. Wizardman 02:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Maureen Storey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No attempt to establish notability as an academic or public figure with third-party sources. While falling short of being a strict attack, this article is a cherry picking of activities focused on industry affiliations. Even adding balanced material, notability is unlikely to be established. Novangelis (talk) 20:11, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What about a Selected Publications section? Searching Google Scholar reveals 98 studies with her name on them. Doing the same with PubMed turns up 20 results. I personally respect her, given that she is a real scientist, but am also suspicious of how she often defends soft drinks while working for the ABA, which represents the companies that makes them. On another note, here is a biography on BusinessWeek, and she is quoted in this story. Furthermore, she is mentioned in Michele Simon's book Appetite for Profit on page 171. Jinkinson (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. An h-index of 16 is a little low, but the APRE and ABA activities clearly pass WP:PROF #7. The fact that some people view those activities as bad just makes her all the more notable. -- 203.171.197.23 (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  04:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 BTW she published a study concluding that "the association between SB consumption and BMI was near zero, based on the current body of scientific evidence." This study was pointed out by Kelly Brownell as an example of a study "that does not support a relationship between consumption of sugared beverages and health outcomes," which, he states, "tend to be conducted by authors supported by the beverage industry." Jinkinson (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The bio in business week is self-written. It's not an editorially revised work, and not a RS for anything disputable. It certainly does not contribute to notability, except to what may be inferred from the fact they included it at all.  DGG ( talk ) 06:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep on balance, I;d keep this. She's sufficiently important, and the best way of showing her possible bias is to include discussion of her publications in the article. When it comes to someone whose view are unpopular here, even when they're unpopular for very good reasons, we should try to counteract our own bias.   DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 29 July 2013 (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.