Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secondhand 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 delete. Owen× ☎ 18:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secondhand obesity

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

Neologism with little notability beyond political posturing. Article was started with a passing reference to a political talk show as its only "source". Shortly thereafter, two weak sources were added: a forum posting to a "smoker's rights" site griping about "nanny state" issues and an obesity group discussing causes of obesity (without really saying anything relevant to this article). No reliable sources provided or found. Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as WP:NEOLOGISM --CliffC (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is research in this area, but this term is of new coinage. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IDONTLIKEIT-motivated nomination. this and this reference prove its notability. There are enough coverage in google news search --Reference Desker (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My motivation was lack of notability. Your first link give me a notice that the viewing limit has been exceeded. The second one tells us that "there was no concept of passive smoking, let alone 'passive drinking' or 'secondhand obesity'", which hardly seems like meaningful coverage of the concept, IMO. If you feel there is enough coverage in a google search, please provide the sources you are finding in that search. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2011 (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.