Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew W. Saul

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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew W. Saul

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

Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF criteria. Tagged for notability since March 2011. There appears to be little or no coverage in independent, reliable sources; the article is dominated by low-quality, self-published, and promotional sources. The only independent, reliably sourced coverage appears to be a brief rehash of talking points in a Psychology Today article, which seems to me to fail to meet our bar for non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. In keeping with our insistence on high-quality sources for biographical articles, I think this article should be deleted unless/until such sources are available. MastCell ^Talk 18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe; maybe not. WP:BIO: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His field appears to be alternative health, whether one fully agrees with the subject area or not. A quantity of books and movie appearances, being editor of a peer-reviewed newsfeed, and substantial journal input suggests a fairly significant contribution to his specific field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narrowgauge (talk • contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC) My apologies for omitting the signature. Narrowgauge (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Narrowgauge (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find sufficient independent quality reliable sources about the person or his views or evidence of sufficient impact on the field. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His is clearly a minority viewpoint in the field of conventional medicine. But that is not his field. I could find a great deal of evidence about his impact on his field, his field being alternative/orthomolecular medicine. Of course, to find it, one must search in the field of orthomolecular medicine itself. Independent quality reliable sources are unlikely to cite or objectively discuss a field that they disagree with, perhaps in the same way that Democrats seldom endorse Republicans. If Wikipedia wants to be maintain objectivity and comprehensiveness, it might not wish to delete unpopular but significant views. If it does, only the alternative websites will have this information, possibly without the counterweight or balance that Wikipedia could provide. If Wikipedia deletes, those alternative websites can reasonably opine that Wikipedia is somewhat biased. Narrowgauge (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whatever guideline one applies, WP:PROF or WP:GNG, this fails it. No independent reliable sources, hence not notable. --Crusio (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. It does not fail Wiki guideline WP:BIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." His specific field clearly is alternative/orthomomolecular medicine. Even a cursory Google search verifies his impact in this area. Narrowgauge (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To qualify under that criterion, you need independent reliable sources that establish this "widely recognized contribution". I don't see that here at all. --Crusio (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline for lack of hits at Google News Archive. Fails the WP:PROF guideline, no hits at Google Scholar. Apparently Narrowgauge, his SPA booster, is claiming that he is important in the field of orthomolecular medicine, but evidence of that is lacking, even at Google, where pretty much everything found is self-referential. He is an important figure in the field because he says he is? Sorry, doesn't work that way. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be fair: "No hits at Google Scholar" is simply not true. Try again, using a Google Scholar search for "Saul AW" and using the quotes. There appear to be several dozen. Narrowgauge (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Narrowgauge (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try that. This yields, on the first page, three articles in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. They have been cited by others 5 times, 3 times, and 2 times, respectively. There is also one book, of which he is the second author, which received 8 citations, and another book by him alone, cited twice. What was that again, about making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field"? Apparently not even his own, narrow field regards him as much of a thought leader. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well now: we've gone from "no hits at Google scholar" to a listing of his publications and citations. I am glad we could have this little talk. I also think that a fair look at the opinionated statement "not even his own, narrow field regards him as much of a thought leader" might be in order. Like it or not, it is undeniable that for three of his seven books, his coauthor is the founder of orthomolecular medicine, Abram Hoffer, M.D.. Yes, Linus Pauling gave orthomolecular medicine its name, but Hoffer started what Pauling would name 15 years later. . . after he read a book by Hoffer. Orthomolecular medicine adherents universally regard Hoffer as their dean. Unless Hoffer was somehow forced to have Saul as his coauthor for these three books, it rather looks like, in his specific field, Saul is notable. WP:BIO guidelines specifically allow for keeping this entry on that basis. Narrowgauge (talk) 11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We all give "opinions" here, so in that sense all comments here are "opinionated". Yours are not any less opinionated either, by the way. Apart from that, I agree completely with MelanieN that the number of GS citations is vanishingly small. As for having published with Hoffer, please see WP:NOTINHERITED. If this guy is so notable, then where are the sources showing that? --Crusio (talk) 11:40, 31 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.