Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Buchwald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus, default to Keep. Waltontalk 17:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerhard Buchwald

Gerhard Buchwald (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Notability. No secondary sources on the man. Of the 200 scientific publications reported, only 24 (from 1957 to 1982, all in German) are listed in PubMed. Biologos 11:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Of probable interest as a promoter of fringe views on vaccination. Not a mainstream medic, but has published in German and had books translated into English. Presumably popular among people holding similar views, seems to be used as a reference by them. Even if a fruitcake, quack or eccentric, seems to be a notable one. However the article as written lacks references and any critical analysis or peoperly referenced biographical material. This needs remedying. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 11:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep for now to give editors a chance to flesh the article out with content and citations. "Gerhard Buchwald" yields 11,000+ ghits, the majority in German, but he appears to have presented at a number of international symposiums and he is reasonably well quoted. If there isn't sufficient interest to lift this article from stub status, let it die. --Nonstopdrivel 12:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- David Eppstein 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Partly on the basis of the German Wikipedia. Their standards for admission are higher than ours, and they have a better knowledge of the available literature. PubMed unfortunately covers only a few German language journals--the necessary index is Excerpta Medica, and I don't have access to that one--in general, only med schools have it and in the US not all of them. From the publication list, that two of the books have been translated into English is I think significant.
As I understand it, the theory is not all that fringe with respect to the effectiveness of vaccination against tuberculosis, which was never adopted in the US; the risks from smallpox vaccination are also real, & that too has been discontinued. DGG 01:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Minor point: smallpox vaccination was not discontinued because of its risks, but rather because of its remarkable success: smallpox has been eradicated as a naturally occurring disease, so there's no more need for vaccination (outside of bioterrorism, of course). MastCell Talk 02:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The English-language versions of his books have either been self-published (ISBN 3-8334-1572-X), or published by a Books-On-Demand service. I'm not sure whether that adds any relevance.--Biologos 11:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Sounds like WP:POV advertising to me: He also conducted a thriving medico-legal practice providing about 150 medical assessments of cases of vaccine damage for claims for compensation. Someone whose scientific agenda aligns with his bank account is enormously suspect to me. Until someone can establish he is a serious scientist respected by his community, I think this article should be removed.--RandomHumanoid(⇒) 03:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Add him to antivaccinationist or vaccine critics if desired. As to waiting longer, the article was started in Dec 2005. Midgley 19:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy keep: Per above. Also, vaccine injury risks are quite real, as can be shown by the long list of recalled vaccines have been withdrawn from pharmaceutical markets. Ombudsman 19:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This argument is specious. Just because there may be risks from some vaccines does not mean everyone commenting on this issue is notable. In the same way, just as physics is a serious pursuit, not every crackpot who claims to be doing physics is notable. (Not to imply Gerhard Buchwald is a crackpot; this analogy is just to make a point.) --RandomHumanoid(⇒) 23:21, 22 June 2007 (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.