368:. 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 Knowledge 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 Knowledge could provide. If Knowledge deletes, those alternative websites can reasonably opine that Knowledge is somewhat biased.
511:, 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. --
530:
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,
529:
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
215:
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,
466:
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
197:
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
559:
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
202:
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.
415:"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.
158:
298:
481:
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.
152:
275:
119:
321:
508:
459:
347:. I could not find sufficient independent quality reliable sources about the person or his views or evidence of sufficient impact on the field. -
216:
being editor of a peer-reviewed newsfeed, and substantial journal input suggests a fairly significant contribution to his specific field.
92:
87:
260:
232:
96:
264:
79:
17:
173:
140:
353:
588:
36:
134:
587:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
573:
547:
520:
498:
476:
446:
424:
404:
377:
358:
336:
313:
290:
247:
209:
130:
59:
561:
83:
543:
494:
486:
420:
373:
256:
243:
228:
539:
490:
482:
416:
369:
252:
239:
224:
180:
220:
75:
65:
166:
516:
472:
332:
309:
286:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
569:
442:
400:
348:
146:
463:
388:
194:
55:
437:
that establish this "widely recognized contribution". I don't see that here at all. --
535:
512:
468:
412:
392:
205:
190:
434:
328:
305:
282:
113:
565:
438:
396:
50:
564:. If this guy is so notable, then where are the sources showing that? --
395:, this fails it. No independent reliable sources, hence not notable. --
538:
guidelines specifically allow for keeping this entry on that basis.
581:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
299:
list of
Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
458:
Fails the general notability guideline for lack of hits at
467:
because he says he is? Sorry, doesn't work that way. --
411:
Respectfully disagree. It does not fail Wiki guideline
109:
105:
101:
165:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
591:). No further edits should be made to this page.
276:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
179:
8:
322:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
320:Note: This debate has been included in the
297:Note: This debate has been included in the
274:Note: This debate has been included in the
433:To qualify under that criterion, you need
319:
296:
273:
238:My apologies for omitting the signature.
507:OK, let's try that. This yields, on the
7:
24:
387:Whatever guideline one applies,
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
435:independent reliable sources
608:
489:) 23:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
235:) 18:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
584:Please do not modify it.
574:11:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
548:11:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
521:00:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
499:23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
477:20:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
447:16:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
425:15:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
405:15:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
378:15:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
359:08:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
337:00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
314:00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
291:00:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
248:18:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
210:18:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
60:18:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
532:in his specific field,
265:few or no other edits
267:outside this topic.
460:Google News Archive
44:The result was
534:Saul is notable.
357:
339:
325:
316:
302:
293:
279:
268:
237:
223:comment added by
599:
586:
351:
326:
303:
280:
250:
236:
217:
200:Psychology Today
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
607:
606:
602:
601:
600:
598:
597:
596:
595:
589:deletion review
582:
562:WP:NOTINHERITED
218:
126:
90:
74:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
605:
603:
594:
593:
578:
577:
576:
551:
550:
526:
525:
524:
523:
502:
501:
479:
452:
451:
450:
449:
428:
427:
408:
407:
381:
380:
362:
361:
341:
340:
317:
294:
270:
269:
189:Does not meet
187:
186:
123:
76:Andrew W. Saul
68:
66:Andrew W. Saul
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
604:
592:
590:
585:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
558:
555:
554:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
496:
492:
488:
484:
480:
478:
474:
470:
465:
461:
457:
454:
453:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
363:
360:
355:
350:
346:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
323:
318:
315:
311:
307:
300:
295:
292:
288:
284:
277:
272:
271:
266:
262:
258:
254:
249:
245:
241:
234:
230:
226:
222:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
207:
201:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
71:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
583:
580:
556:
531:
462:. Fails the
455:
384:
365:
344:
219:— Preceding
204:
199:
198:points in a
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
70:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
540:Narrowgauge
491:Narrowgauge
483:Narrowgauge
417:Narrowgauge
370:Narrowgauge
263:) has made
253:Narrowgauge
240:Narrowgauge
225:Narrowgauge
153:free images
509:first page
329:• Gene93k
306:• Gene93k
283:• Gene93k
513:MelanieN
469:MelanieN
261:contribs
233:contribs
221:unsigned
206:MastCell
120:View log
557:Comment
464:WP:PROF
389:WP:PROF
195:WP:PROF
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
566:Crusio
536:WP:BIO
456:Delete
439:Crusio
413:WP:BIO
397:Crusio
393:WP:GNG
385:Delete
345:Delete
191:WP:BIO
131:Google
97:delete
46:delete
354:cont.
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
48:. --
16:<
570:talk
544:talk
517:talk
495:talk
487:talk
473:talk
443:talk
421:talk
401:talk
374:talk
366:Keep
333:talk
310:talk
287:talk
257:talk
244:talk
229:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
391:or
349:2/0
193:or
181:TWL
118:– (
572:)
546:)
519:)
497:)
475:)
445:)
423:)
403:)
376:)
335:)
327:—
324:.
312:)
304:—
301:.
289:)
281:—
278:.
259:•
251:—
246:)
231:•
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
58:)
568:(
542:(
515:(
493:(
485:(
471:(
441:(
419:(
399:(
372:(
356:)
352:(
331:(
308:(
285:(
255:(
242:(
227:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.