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. Stifle ( talk) 15:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Yoni Freedhoff

Yoni Freedhoff (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable. Does not meet WP:PROF -- h=5, highest citation figure 44 as one of a large group of authors. Does not meet NAUTHOR, only 2 real books, neither important. GNG depends on Does not meet GNG--refs are his own publications or author blurbs; nothing substantial found on Google. Promotional: gives sources for his books, lists all his lectures, one of them important. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep- There are several solid reasons to keep this wikipedia entry. Number one is that Yoni Freedhoff is an expert in Canada on non-surgical means of controlling diet and weight. This issue is not mundane nor trivial, but the issue of obesity and the epidemic of diabetes in the western world is one of the most important health issues facing the industrialized world. Therefore this man, as an expert on this crucial issue, should automatically be considered notable. Second, I am not sure if the other editors that contributed to this article in the intervening three months since the it was created will see the tag that it has been nominated for deletion, but the fact that several wiki editors have added and made changes to the article, improving it during the time it has been up should give weight to the notion that the article is wiki-worthy. Third, although there are at the moment not that many references, it appears that the references that are present are decent and solid and not self-serving blogs or other inadequate sources. If the article is allowed to remain, there is a high chance that editors will come to the article, adding more information from more reliable sources. As a service to people seeking information about controlling weight and obesity, this article on Yoni Freedhoff is most assuredly an important resource. ReachingtheStars ( talk) 08:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica ¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete: Look, it's pretty basic. Wikipedia guidelines for notability don't have anything to say about being a so-called "expert" on obesity. They also don't take into consideration how many edits an article has. To meet the GNG, this guy has to have had multiple reliable sources discuss him---not his views---in detail that satisfies WP:SIGCOV. I haven't found any. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The context of the article is in terms of scientific expertise, for which WP:PROF would be the appropriate guideline. WoS shows 18 publications, one of which is a "letter to the editor" contribution signed by several dozen people. Of his science work, there are about 20 cumulative citations, which is consistent with his being an entry-level academic. Basically WP:TOOSOON. Agricola44 ( talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC). reply
• Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF and WP:GNG, and the article seems somewhat promotional to me. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC) Changed my mind — see below. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• DeleteWeak keep Clearly a successful doctor, but not so much as to rise to encyclopedic notability. LaMona ( talk) 23:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep His latest book has been pretty widely reviewed, including by Scientific American and National Post. I know that a literal interpretation of WP:AUTHOR can be ridiculously easy to meet, but I've also found coverage in publications like the Los Angeles Times and Montreal Gazette. I think he certainly meets WP:GNG. I toned down the language about his works being available online and such. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 04:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: the "review" in Scientific American is a blog post by an outsider blogger, not under the editorial auspices of SA. The Newsday review seems to be a RS and substantial, although behind a paywall so I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. The LA Times has an article about him being un-invited to talk to an audience of food industry reps. [1]. The National Post review is substantial -- but of course about the book, not him. He seems to be interviewed frequently in Canadian sources, esp. Ottawa papers. He has written for US News and World Report (more than a handful of times), Psychology Today, and The Globe and Mail. I'm still seeing him as just a bit more than a successful doctor, but inching toward notability. Links: [2] [3] [4] [5] LaMona ( talk) 23:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I think the mainstream media sources in the article are good enough for WP:AUTHOR/ WP:GNG (an easier bar in this case than WP:PROF). Re the comment above by LaMona: there are enough other sources that I don't think the Scientific American one is necessary, but sources published as blogs under the imprimatur and editorial control of a major publisher can still be considered reliable, even thought they're not printed as a paper publication. If Scientific American allowed anyone to sign up and blog under their name, it would be different, but they don't. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 15:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) reply

• @ DGG, NukeThePukes, and Agricola44, thoughts on the sources and GNG claim? czar  ⨹ 19:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC) reply

• Not yet convinced. I'm willing to give the barest benefit of the doubt to that LA Times link, even though it discusses the subject a good bit less than an incident concerning him. The other posted links are quotes from him, which is explicitly debarred from supporting the notability of a subject. Those headers make various claims about bestsellers and the like, but it strikes me that with a couple of you digging, no one's come up with actual proof of that. One maybe-possibly-good source doesn't do enough for me to change my vote, even though I get that this'll close as a no-consensus keep. Nha Trang ^Allons! 19:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Keep the guy may be a publicity-seeking, self-promoter, and I have no idea if his diet theories hold water. However, that is not our job. Our job is to check out how many reliable sources think he's worth covering, and, fact is, his popular book got major reviews. His op-eds get published in big newspapers. He's got 20,000 twitter followers. He gets interviewed by the CBC [6] So he passes WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR ShulMaven ( talk) 02:13, 9 December 2014 (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.