Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Hooper

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:06, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Hooper

Malcolm Hooper does not have the notability by WP:PROF, he is retired professor without notable accomplishment in biochemistry. There is a few Malcolm Hoopers in Google News like a cricket player and a member of fascist party from 1930s. This Malcolm Hooper is most known as lay activist for chronic fatigue syndrome but there is not reliable sources and he is not a recognized expert. I do not find sources about him, but some do mention him but I do not think it is significant. RetroS1mone talk 03:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a typical minor academic with emeritus syndrome, but he got significant mention in the press for his campaigning. Apart from the Guardian piece currently cited in the article, there's also another Guardian article on his feud with Wessely and a briefer mention here in a Guardian article on Gulf War Syndrome. That's just the first two mentions in a minute's searching. N p holmes (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note, Hoooper does not have notability in WP:PROF, he can have notability in general bio guidelines. "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" The guardian piece in the article is primary, by Hoooper it is not about Hooper so not independent. The articles N p holmes says about are primary sources. Do you get notability by your name mentioned in a few primary sources, i do not know but i do not think so, "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". RetroS1mone talk 13:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here: the articles I am citing here are what most people would call secondary sources. The first at least is not just a mention – it discusses Hooper at length. N p holmes (talk) 09:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Just looking at the career as a medicinal chemist, based on Web of Science I find 31 peer-reviewed papers on chemistry,in good journals, highest citations 20, 18, 17. This is a minor career, mostly from the days when it was Sunderland Polytechnic, and probably would not have gotten him a professorship today at Sutherland. He may be more prominent with respect to autism. DGG (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor career, but seems important in the political debate around CFS. Sam Weller (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough independent news coverage to justify inclusion under WP:BIO, even after skipping false positives.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2009 (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.