Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael A. Pagliarulo


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Michael A. Pagliarulo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently non-notable academic. Some of the awards are from a state-level professional society. If this person is notable, the references do not show it. Also, the references listed are not sufficiently independent from the person to be useful in judging his notability. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  04:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep Appears to be a leader in his field and authored an ''Introduction to Physical Therapy Elsevier/Mosby, Apr 28, 2011 - Medical - 388 pages which looks to have been printed in several editions. Several awards are also noted in the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Leader? The book has only 9 cites on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC).
 * Is that a lot or a little for authors in this field? Some other works noted in Scholar Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I can find only 19 citations in Google scholar (plus onejoint paper with 45 cites). We typically require of the order of 1000 citations to pass WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC).
 * You guys make some good arguments. At least one award is verifiable. There's also a bi about his family here. My keep is weakening, but I still think there is some notability. Lots of academics publish, but a textbook that appears to have some use as well as his other publications and descriptions of his role in the field I think is enough to pass prof and/or academic notability standards. Maybe.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominator reply to Candleabracadabra's earlier comment: I would love to be wrong about this guy, but I also find a low number of citations (I found about 110-120 over his career, when you add in "MA Pagliarulo" and "Michael A. Pagliarulo" and take out false positives. Admittedly some older works of his may not be in Google Scholar.).  Writing a book is not an indicator of notability for those in academia, and under 120 citations seems a bit low for a retired professor to qualify as notable if his notability criteria is being a leader in the field. As I said in the nomination, most of the awards seem to be state-level awards from his own professional society.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment by nominator: I also declined Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Michael A. Pagliarulo for reasons of lack of notability. I'm stating this here because, having put my reputation on the line with the AFC submission among my peers at AFC, I should not be considered completely unbiased in this matter.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Web of Science lists 26 articles for "Pagliarulo M" (most from other people, actually), that have been cited a cumulative total of 158 times, for a joint h-index of 7. Even if this was all the same person, that's a far cry from what we usually accept here as indicating notability. Unless somebody finds evidence that his book is/was widely used as a textbook, this does not meet WP:PROF. --Randykitty (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2013 (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.