1028:
if he is. If there are a dozen members of a committee who do the same thing and then one of them gives quotes to the media when the committee's asked, does that make them more notable than the other eleven, does it make them notable beyond the notability of the committee itself? Since we already have an article on the particular committee that the subject seems to have received the most coverage for (if not as you say his only recorded endeavour) it seemed like a logical place where any information could be preserved.
872:
sources providing nontrivial coverage of him. This coverage does have real substance to it. Whenever he is mentioned, it is not just in some clerk-type role of a representative of this or that organization reading its statement or something. Busby is usually described by the news-sources as an active individual proponent of various causes and ideas. In my view this does make him pass
900:
and is part of a pattern of secretive homeopathic BSc degree courses and other infiltrations of pseudoscience - but I digress. I think a redirect and summary in some other article may be more appropriate, rather than trying to bend notability requirements until his low dose can fit (bad joke there, sorry - I'm having a bad week :)).
899:
here), but to give him his own article seems to be giving him too much notability - when even his own secretary argued against their notability in the recent Low Level
Radiation Campaign deletion discussion (which I found worrying at the time). His affiliation to a British University seems sad to me,
894:
causes and ideas. Also, they are not about him. The mentions still add up to a lot of, in my opinion (and you're welcome to disagree, I have no personal vendetta against this crank), trivial coverage of him. Some of the groups he is affiliated with, such as the ECRR, seem notable and is a place where
1027:
on which an article could be based without further corroboration. My main problem with the current level of sourcing is that there's no direct discussion of the subject, he doesn't appear to have been profiled by either the main-stream or specialist press, his cause is certainly notable I'm not sure
1049:
address your first point. The use of self-published or primary sources for verifiability purposes related to basic non-controversial biographical data (education, family status, nationality, etc) is acceptable. Moreover, it is standard practice to use, say, CV's of academics as sources for basic
871:
offers the following guidance:"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." I think that is exactly what we have here. Plenty of
862:
case on those grounds here. It is true that, unlike in articles about some new teen heartthrob actor/actress, we don't have information about Busby's favorite toothpaste, favorite pizza, the kind of music he listens to or what was the name of a cat he had a child. But such information is not
494:
shows reviews of the sequel "Wolves of Water". My point here being that this man has a great deal of coverage in
Reliable Sources that fully address his notability. He is not just a 5-hit blip. One cannot limit one's search. Use a variety of search conditions and the floodgates fly open. He's
1050:
biographical info about them of the above kind. More controversial matters, such as discussion of political positions and impact of political activism, should certainly be sourced to secondary sources (which, in this case, are available in relation to his environmental activism).
1005:. Since he is primarily notable for his environmental activism, it is natural and appropriate that most sources providing coverage of him cover his activism and not his personal life. However, that is still nontrivial coverage of him that does count under
745:. All of them provide nontrivial coverage of him, although none appear to provide in-depth coverage of him personally. However, in a number of these newsarticles he is featured quite prominently, such as this BBC report, which is primarily about him
1084:
Well you make some good points and have me half convinced but I'm still concerned by the issue of the lack of any substantial biographical information from independent sources. On that basis I've struck part of my original opinion above.
220:, however the articles are not about him. They are more focused on the aspects of a court case and mention Dr. Busby only in the context of his testimony in that case. Without any references focusing on Dr. Busby specifically, no
140:). Even within the area of fringe radiation research he is hardly notable, except in the echo chamber of groups he is a member of (Green Audit, the LLRC, ECRR, CERRIE, etc and their websites - all affiliated with him).
359:
about the individual, not his cause. Hey, if you know me and look at my opinion record, I have always been considered an inclusionist, looking for reasons to keep. Sorry to say in this case, I do not believe
844::"He is Dr. Chris Busby, the British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the Faculty of Medicine". In fact, whenever he is mentioned in the news, he is always described as a scientist.
957:
the various sources mentioning him always appear to contain variations of the same one line describing who he is. Unless new sources which deal with the subject directly and detail can be found I think it
708:
742:(the latter has quite a few false positives). I also did a Scopus search and the results there are even smaller. On the other hand, GoogleNews results, even after filtering, are substantial, 132 hits
619:
I know that there are important references. So I will return you the question: how can you say that there are not important references? Are you working in this field? Did you read these books?
355:
and again came to the same conclusion. Though there are a number of articles that have a quote from him in the article the articles themselves are not about him. I am looking to establish
784:
says, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area." That appears to be the case here.
430:
682:
807:. As far as I am aware he holds no academic positions. Many of the reports involving him are from local rather than national coverage, and as you say are not about him specifically.
656:
121:
1112:
This page has actually been deleted for some time and has only just been restored. It was speedy deleted as a copyright violation, however this has all now been removed.
762:
311:
at all, and describe Busby in other ways, as a radiation expert/scientist/green party activist/adviser to the
British government/founder of Green Audit, such as:
1064:
Is that still true even if the person being considered has been shown to not always be a reliable source about their own achievements and qualifications, etc?
772:, albeit weakly (weakly since these articles generally don't discuss Busby as a person). One could also make an argument for passing criterion 7 of
518:
And with respects to the nom, the article does not make a claim for notability as an academic. His notability is outside academia, and falls under
743:
305:
930:
325:
308:
282:
270:
262:
254:
88:
83:
986:
and that describe Busby as a scientist/advisor to
British government/green activist. E.g. this BBC story is primarily about Busby's report:
983:
952:
933:
per
Shoessss. I'm not finding the Google news archive hits for his name very impressive; most are of the form "Busby of the ECRR said..." —
92:
403:
757:. Apparently some of his activism in Britain produced quite a bit of a splash and even something of a sensation, as these reports show
75:
17:
841::"Chris Busby, from Liverpool University, north-west England, and a founder of environmental consultancy Green Audit"; Uruknet, 2005
994:
318:
519:
858:
Having said that, I think that notability here comes primarily from his environmental activism, and that there is a passable
982:
As I pointed out in response to
Shoessss above, there are plenty of news-stories regarding him that don't even mention the
768:. In view of the number of sources and the fact that the coverage they provide is nontrivial, I think that this does pass
740:
491:
214:
966:
information there is about him included in the article about the organisation for which he appears to be primarily known.
838:"were obtained by Chris Busby, of Liverpool University’s department of human anatomy and cell biology"; News.com.au, 2006
748:. A few quotes from the newsarticles in this googlenews search:"Dr Chris Busby, a leading expert on low-level radiation"
1196:
36:
1002:, etc. There is quite enough personal info about him from reliable sources for an article, such as this page at CERRIE
736:
criteria do not seem to be satisfied. Little evidence of substantial citability of his scholarly work in GoogleScholar
776::"The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity" (my least favorite portion of
216:
475:
531:
504:
415:
1195:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1181:
1163:
1144:
1127:
1094:
1079:
1059:
1037:
1018:
975:
942:
938:
915:
885:
853:
822:
793:
723:
697:
671:
642:
628:
614:
592:
569:
536:
509:
442:
382:
337:
299:
238:
201:
179:
155:
57:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
554:, as commented in the nomination. As commented in the nomination, he fails the general notability guideline.
258:
1000:
766:
53:
737:
583:
This scientist is quite known. He wrote two books which are themselves important references in this field.
487:
361:
356:
274:
221:
803:
But this isn't related to his academic competence, this is to do with his activism which falls outside of
79:
599:
They are not important references by anyone working in the field. Do you have a source for this claim?
896:
524:
497:
467:
408:
1046:
551:
1090:
1033:
971:
934:
483:
429:
If you put "" around "Christopher Busby" and "European
Committee on Radiation Risks", you only get
370:
287:
226:
1023:
I'm not really sure if a biography provided by a committee he was a member of can be considered a
406:
search found ample articles on Busby himself, and should provide proper sourcing for the article.
186:
I would support a redirect to ECRR following the two arguments below. He still fails WP:BIO etc.
755:
471:
324:. This is just a sample of what is available. Given that much of the coverage is not related to
831:
case, but in these recent sources he is described as affiliated with the
Liverpool University:
758:
1178:
992:
839:
693:
667:
352:
316:
278:
266:
71:
63:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
990:
836:
804:
781:
777:
773:
733:
314:
137:
133:
1140:
1121:
1073:
909:
816:
719:
608:
563:
438:
195:
173:
149:
1006:
873:
868:
864:
859:
828:
769:
1055:
1014:
881:
849:
789:
333:
1024:
963:
749:
547:
998:
351:, I went through the articles you provided and again did another search with regards to
322:
1086:
1029:
967:
638:
624:
588:
1042:
1159:
130:
received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
364:
about the individual has been established. Again this goes to my opinion regarding
1172:
689:
663:
304:
That's not correct. Just taking a few entries from the top of the GoogleNews search
459:
109:
463:
1136:
1113:
1065:
996:
987:
901:
808:
760:
746:
715:
600:
555:
484:
americanfreepress.net which reveals that speaks to Busby's report being shocking
434:
320:
312:
187:
165:
141:
49:
752:
218:
1152:
as a activist, though not as an academic. I too follow Nsk's analysis here.
1051:
1010:
877:
845:
785:
764:
348:
329:
307:, one finds quite a few news-stories related to him that do not even mention
832:
634:
620:
584:
433:
Ghits, one of them this WP article and the others all are WP mirrors.... --
136:), and nor does he pass the professor test (he fails all nine criteria of
1154:
1003:
455:
450:
and if you do not put the search in quotes, you get far more than 5:
842:
213:– I was able to find some reference for Dr. Busby, as shown here
1189:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
476:
opednews.com which refers to him a "the
British radiation expert
456:
cerrie.org which sources his position, education, and background
490:
shows numerous reviews of his book "Wings of Death" and this
709:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
480:
epha.org which tells of a Busby report and a cancer epedemic
479:
633:@ Verbal: Can you please answer my question above? Thanks,
451:
285:
is more appropriate. Hope this helps explain my position.
269:
is only mentioned in the context of being the Secretary of
257:. Though there are a number of articles that reference
754:, "An international expert on low level radiation, Busby"
116:
105:
101:
97:
277:, hence my reason for my original deletion opinion of
472:
mindfully.org which reviews Busby's works and reports
368:, linking him to his favored cause and organization.
265:, which is the main focus of the pieces and, again,
128:
Contested prod. The subject of this article has not "
867:and one needs to excercise some common sense here.
683:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
261:they are only in relation to his position with the
657:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1199:). No further edits should be made to this page.
464:countercurrents.org which speaks of Busby's work
522:. There, he is the patron saint of notability.
486:, etc. etc. etc. And in related searches, this
739:(top citation hits 18, 17, 15) and GoogleBooks
8:
751:, "a top radiation scientist, Chris Busby"
328:, merging there would not be appropriate.
895:his views could be aired (being weary of
707:: This debate has been included in the
681:: This debate has been included in the
655:: This debate has been included in the
452:euradcon.org which sources his postion
273:. The position itself does not grant
1171:I also agree witk Nsk92's reasoning.
931:European Committee on Radiation Risks
326:European Committee on Radiation Risks
309:European Committee on Radiation Risks
283:European Committee on Radiation Risks
271:European Committee on Radiation Risks
263:European Committee on Radiation Risks
255:European Committee on Radiation Risks
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
984:European Committee on Radiation Risk
953:European Committee on Radiation Risk
780:, but still). As note number 14 in
989:. Other examples of this kind are
827:I prefer to think about this as a
24:
281:piece. A merge and redirect to
962:more sense to have the little
1:
546:Those references mostly fail
460:an interview on pacifica.org
224:established. Hence delete.
1182:23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
1164:03:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
1145:08:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
1128:21:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1095:21:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1080:21:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1060:20:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1038:19:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
1019:18:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
976:18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
943:03:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
916:18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
886:15:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
854:15:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
823:07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
794:00:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
732:. On one hand, most of the
724:22:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
698:21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
672:21:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
643:20:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
629:21:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
615:07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
593:23:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
570:07:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
537:00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
510:23:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
443:22:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
383:16:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
338:15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
300:12:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
239:20:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
202:13:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
180:19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
156:19:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
58:08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
1216:
1192:Please do not modify it.
259:'''Christopher Busby'''
32:Please do not modify it.
468:a biography at neis.org
863:necessary for passing
550:, and the others fail
520:WP:Notability (people)
249:Comment - Change to
1045:and, specifically,
495:notable. No doubt.
44:The result was
1126:
1078:
914:
821:
726:
712:
700:
686:
674:
660:
613:
568:
279:Christopher Busby
200:
178:
154:
72:Christopher Busby
64:Christopher Busby
1207:
1194:
1124:
1120:
1118:
1076:
1072:
1070:
964:reliably sourced
951:and redirect to
912:
908:
906:
819:
815:
813:
713:
703:
687:
677:
661:
651:
611:
607:
605:
566:
562:
560:
527:
500:
411:
381:
298:
237:
198:
194:
192:
176:
172:
170:
152:
148:
146:
119:
113:
95:
34:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1197:deletion review
1190:
1122:
1114:
1074:
1066:
1025:reliable source
910:
902:
817:
809:
609:
601:
564:
556:
525:
498:
409:
369:
286:
225:
196:
188:
174:
166:
150:
142:
115:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1213:
1211:
1202:
1201:
1185:
1184:
1166:
1147:
1130:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
979:
978:
945:
935:David Eppstein
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
856:
797:
796:
727:
701:
675:
648:
647:
646:
645:
631:
596:
595:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
540:
539:
513:
512:
445:
421:
420:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
366:Merge/Redirect
251:Merge/Redirect
242:
241:
205:
204:
183:
182:
164:as nominator.
126:
125:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1212:
1200:
1198:
1193:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1156:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:per Nsk92. --
1134:
1131:
1129:
1125:
1119:
1117:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1071:
1069:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1001:
999:
997:
995:
993:
991:
988:
985:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
956:
954:
950:
946:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
924:
917:
913:
907:
905:
898:
893:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
870:
866:
861:
857:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
837:
834:
830:
826:
825:
824:
820:
814:
812:
806:
802:
799:
798:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
765:
763:
761:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
731:
728:
725:
721:
717:
710:
706:
702:
699:
695:
691:
684:
680:
676:
673:
669:
665:
658:
654:
650:
649:
644:
640:
636:
632:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
616:
612:
606:
604:
598:
597:
594:
590:
586:
582:
579:
578:
571:
567:
561:
559:
553:
549:
545:
542:
541:
538:
535:
534:
533:
529:
528:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
511:
508:
507:
506:
502:
501:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
425:
424:
423:
422:
419:
418:
417:
413:
412:
405:
401:
398:
397:
384:
380:
379:
376:
373:
367:
363:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
321:
319:
317:
315:
313:
310:
306:
303:
302:
301:
297:
296:
293:
290:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
240:
236:
235:
232:
229:
223:
219:
217:
215:
212:
211:
207:
206:
203:
199:
193:
191:
185:
184:
181:
177:
171:
169:
163:
160:
159:
158:
157:
153:
147:
145:
139:
135:
131:
123:
118:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1191:
1188:
1177:
1173:
1168:
1153:
1149:
1132:
1115:
1109:
1067:
959:
948:
947:
926:
903:
891:
810:
800:
729:
704:
678:
652:
602:
580:
557:
543:
532:
530:
523:
505:
503:
496:
447:
426:
416:
414:
407:
399:
377:
374:
371:
365:
344:
294:
291:
288:
250:
233:
230:
227:
209:
208:
189:
167:
161:
143:
129:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
897:wp:coatrack
890:Of various
400:SPEEDY Keep
1047:WP:SELFPUB
552:WP:SELFPUB
362:Notability
357:Notability
275:Notability
222:Notability
1169:Weak Keep
1150:weak keep
1133:Weak Keep
1087:Guest9999
1030:Guest9999
968:Guest9999
833:The Times
730:Weak Keep
690:• Gene93k
664:• Gene93k
353:Dr. Busby
267:Mr. Busby
801:Comments
526:Schmidt,
499:Schmidt,
410:Schmidt,
122:View log
805:WP:PROF
782:WP:PROF
778:WP:PROF
774:WP:PROF
734:WP:PROF
544:Comment
427:Comment
345:Comment
138:WP:PROF
134:WP:NOTE
89:protect
84:history
1137:Crusio
1116:Verbal
1068:Verbal
1007:WP:BIO
904:Verbal
892:fringe
874:WP:BIO
869:WP:BIO
865:WP:BIO
860:WP:BIO
835:, 2006
829:WP:BIO
811:Verbal
770:WP:BIO
716:John Z
603:Verbal
558:Verbal
492:search
488:search
435:Crusio
375:hoesss
347:- Hey
292:hoesss
231:hoesss
210:Delete
190:Verbal
168:Verbal
162:Delete
144:Verbal
117:delete
93:delete
50:Stifle
1174:Gizza
1052:Nsk92
1011:Nsk92
949:Merge
927:Merge
878:Nsk92
846:Nsk92
786:Nsk92
548:WP:RS
448:Note:
349:Nsk92
330:Nsk92
120:) – (
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1160:talk
1141:talk
1123:chat
1110:Note
1091:talk
1075:chat
1056:talk
1043:WP:V
1034:talk
1015:talk
972:talk
958:make
939:talk
911:chat
882:talk
850:talk
818:chat
790:talk
720:talk
705:Note
694:talk
679:Note
668:talk
653:Note
639:talk
635:Yann
625:talk
621:Yann
610:chat
589:talk
585:Yann
581:Keep
565:chat
439:talk
431:five
404:THIS
334:talk
197:chat
175:chat
151:chat
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
1155:DGG
929:to
711:.
688:--
685:.
662:--
659:.
132:" (
1162:)
1143:)
1093:)
1058:)
1036:)
1017:)
1009:.
974:)
941:)
884:)
876:.
852:)
792:)
722:)
696:)
670:)
641:)
627:)
591:)
482:,
478:,
474:,
470:,
466:,
462:,
458:,
454:,
441:)
402:.
336:)
253:to
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
1158:(
1139:(
1089:(
1054:(
1032:(
1013:(
970:(
960:s
955:,
937:(
880:(
848:(
788:(
718:(
714:—
692:(
666:(
637:(
623:(
587:(
437:(
378:S
372:S
332:(
295:S
289:S
234:S
228:S
124:)
114:(
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.