Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul M. Gahlinger

:{{la|Paul M. Gahlinger}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Paul_M._Gahlinger Stats])

:({{Find sources|Paul M. Gahlinger}})

no reliable sources, no verifiability Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

:His entire history and the history of his family cannot be verified. All references are to a book out of print from 1952 or to his own memoir. NO reliable references are listed. This article's history does not meet any Wikipedia guidelines. In addition I would question whether or not he could be considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia page based upon his books.Mwinog2777 (talk) 22:43, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Delete. Some things can be verified (or at least sourced). According to The Milwaukee Sentinel, his father was (or at least claimed to be) a captain of the Swiss Guard,[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19560128&id=okxQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=eQ8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7448,3328568] and he is a doctor who has published books and articles, though an example of the latter isn't particularly earthshattering ([http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2310/7060.2000.00042/abstract "Cabin Location and the Likelihood of Motion Sickness in Cruise Ship Passengers"]). However, the most significant verifiable thing about him is that he was stripped of his Utah medical license for prescribing controlled substances.[http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865607323/Embattled-doctor-surrenders-Utah-medical-license.html?pg=all] All in all, that doesn't satisfy either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with above as well as comments made on the April 2011 tag: the article needs citations; the article relies on primary sources; the author acknowledged working in conjunction with the subject; the style is not encyclopedic. Mwinog2777 (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep—Club Drugs has been cited 108 times, Computer Programs has been cited 101 times, and Illegal Drugs has been cited 67 times per [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Paul+M.+Gahlinger%22&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar]. Not sure that's enough for WP:ACADEMIC, but I expect WP:AUTHOR might work. I'll see if I can dig up some reviews. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:*Illegal Drugs reviewed in the AORN Journal (Association of periOperative Registered Nurses) and Annals of Emergency Medicine.

::*{{cite journal | title=Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use, and Abuse [review] | last=Knapp | first=Nancy | doi=10.1016/S0001-2092(06)60324-4 | journal=AORN | volume=82 | number=2 | pages=581–582 | url=http://www.aornjournal.org/article/S0001-2092(06)60324-4/fulltext | date=August 2005}}{{subscription required}}

::*{{cite journal | title=Illegal Drugs: A Complete Guide to Their History, Chemistry, Use and Abuse [review] | journal=Annals of Emergency Medicine | volume=39 | number=5 | doi=10.1067/mem.2002.123297 | pages=581–582 | date=May 2002 | last=Weltge | first=Arlo | url=http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(02)70091-7/abstract}}{{subscription required}} Lesser Cartographies (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:*Three reviews of Computer Programs in the peer-reviewed literature. Changed my !vote to keep.

::*{{cite journal | title=Computer Programs for Epidemiologists–PEPI Version 4.0 [review] | first=Eduardo L. | last=Franco | journal=Epidemiology | volume=14 | number=4 | date=July 2003 | url=https://www.mcgill.ca/files/cancerepi/BookReview-Epidemiology-14-503-2003.pdf }}

::*{{cite journal | title=Computer Programs for Epidemiologists: PEPI Version 4.0 | first1=Madhukar | last1=Pai | first2=Michael | last2=McCulloch | url=http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/155/8/776.1.full.pdf | journal=American Journal of Epidemiology | volume=155 | number=8 | year=2002}}

::*{{cite journal | title=Computer programs for epidemiologists. PEPI v. 4.0 [review] | journal=Journal of Epidemiological Community Health | last=Llorca | first=J. | doi=10.1136/jech.56.12.959-c | year=2002 | volume=56 | pages=959–960 | url=http://jech.bmj.com/content/56/12/959.4.full}}

• Keep - agree with Lesser Cartographies that publications with >100 citations are notable.128.125.52.41 (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

:*That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I actually said, but whatever.... Lesser Cartographies (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: My initial reasons for deletion included lack of citations, use of primary sources, style and closeness of writer to subject. If kept in because of notability the article should be totally rewritten by an independent editor, using only verified, non-primary information. Short of that it should be deleted because of above problems. If all that is required to be notable is a couple of scientific articles with a certain number of citations, OK, but whole article should be independently written to meet Wiki criteria. Otherwise, it is an inadequate encyclopedic entry.Mwinog2777 (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 09:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

---

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

: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.