User:Draeco/Desk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

bptdeskcitesphilointeriotnew AfDSPATRAWP:POLLSWP:MEDCABWP:RFAWP:RD/S, /L

Projects[edit]

Translate[edit]

Articles[edit]

I have particular pride/obsession/masochistic tendencies with several pages including:


Medicine[edit]

Gordon Giesbrecht[edit]

Gordon Giesbrecht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Gordon Giesbrecht" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

WP:BLP of an academic, written very much like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article (see, in particular, the section which attempts to list every individual media appearance he ever made as a commentator) and resting almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage. He might certainly qualify to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, but no Wikipedia inclusion criterion ever confers an exemption from our content policies — as written, in fact, this technically qualifies as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) speedy, with the fact that the article is about two years old already being the only reason I'm taking it to AFD instead of pulling the speedy trigger. Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a properly sourced manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article needs cleanup (e.g. the section filled with non-notable awards should just be deleted) but with a clear area of expertise (medical effects of coldness), multiple academic publications with over 100 citations each (in Google scholar), a book with multiple published reviews ([2] [3]) and in-depth popular-press coverage in multiple sources (the Outside Magazine reference and this syndicated LA Times article) I think he has a good claim to WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Franklin C. Dielman[edit]

Dr. Franklin C. Dielman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Dr. Franklin C. Dielman" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

A rural medical doctor in Indiana. Unable to find any references on him. Prod was removed Bgwhite (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'm kind of sad to say this, as he seems to have been an upstanding citizen and great fellow, but he has no notability whatsoever. No coverage in reliable, independent sources, no indication of personal significance outside of his small town. Nice as it would be, Wikipedia just isn't a directory of good townsfolk from the olden days, especially when they don't meet WP:GNG. North of Eden (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Phytoserm[edit]

Phytoserm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Phytoserm" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Neologism and PROMO. Only two articles in pubmed that use this term. Article was created by biz dev executive for company marketing a "phytoserm" product. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle[edit]

Femarelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Femarelle" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I would like to request from the Wikipedia community to remove the Femarelle entry for the following reasons:
1.The current entry does not include all the up to date scientific data, which should be part of a media that supposedly brings all the knowledge to the front.
2.Every attempt of updating reliable and up to date data, published in the leading international medical journals was removed or deleted by one specific person that has a very strong agenda against the product for some reason.
3.This same person has deleted the previous entries that were there historically and did provide information on the studies.
4.The current references do not support what is written.
5.There is a general feeling that the product is being targeted because of conflict of interest.
6.It was never our intention or attempt to advertise our product through Wikipedia. It was merely our intention to provide scientific evidence and facts which for some reason we cannot do.
7.Regarding EFSA which for some reason has become an issue for the user "Jytdog": Please note that this is what EFSA has written to us on this matter: EFSA, as the European Union risk assessor, is responsible for providing scientific advice to European Union risk managers (i.e. the European Commission, the Member States and the European Parliament). Please note that EFSA is not involved in any regulatory process which is initiated on the basis of an EFSA opinion. Decisions regarding the authorization of health claims, including the final wording and the authorized conditions of use/restrictions of use, are ultimately taken by risk managers (i.e. the Commission and Member States), and not EFSA. Since the application was withdrawn- the fact that an application was initiated may the reason be whatever they were, does not mean that the “EFSA rejected the application” it just gave an opinion, which has no regulatory standing. You are more than welcome to ask the EFSA Nutrition Unit if this is not the case.
8.Based on all the above, we request that either we are allowed to insert all the up to date scientific data without it being deleted. The data is straightforward information that was published in medical journals, or that this entry be removed altogether as this entry is maliciously targeted by a very motivated person with a not so pure agenda, may his seniority be what it may.
Thank you. Corin at Secure (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Corin, oh Corin. I and others have been trying to tell you how Wikipedia works - how we source content per WP:MEDRS and we cannot use the primary sources you want to use to talk about how great Femarelle is. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. About your point about the EFSA - that is OK and I just updated the article to simply quote the EFSA findings. Overall, I am sorry you are disappointed, but you have not taken enough time to understand this place. This is what can happen sometimes when an editor has a COI - getting their content into WP is more important than understanding what kind of content is OK here. I am sorry that you don't want to learn. In any case, more relevant to what you are doing here, discussions about deleting articles, are based on the criteria described in WP:NOTABILITY which is policy. None of your reasons speak to those criteria. There are three MEDRS-compliant secondary sources that discuss Femarelle, and that is probably enough to meet the notability criteria. But I will not !vote here. We can both see what the community has to say. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - procedural close. Nominator does not make any valid reason for deletion. I don't believe this topic fails notability. МандичкаYO 😜 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. Content dispute is not a valid reason to pursue AfD. -KH-1 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, per above. It is a shame that Corin has failed to understand that we rely on Reliable Sources to build content for wikipedia, in this case WP:MEDRS applies. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, per above. Notability remains questionable, but article is much-improved from its earlier, more promotional versions. Reasons given by nominator do not support deletion, and item #8 seems to dictate terms for non-deletion, contrary to Wikipedia:Ownership of content. Wikipedia is not a press-release service, and is under no obligation to keep an article in a state dictated by an outside entity. / edg 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - Procedural Close per Wikimandia above. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

MedjetAssist[edit]

MedjetAssist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "MedjetAssist" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Classic passing mentions except for one local business magazine. Fails WP:CORP notability. Brianhe (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - per my rationale at the last AfD: Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Other than the one article from the Birmingham Business Journal, all of the references on the article are either unreliable sources, promotional in nature, or simply passing mentions of the company, separate from the substantive content of the story. Inks.LWC (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with the nomination and my own searches in google news and factiva turned up none of the kind of substantial in-depth coverage in RS that would be required to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sirish Hospital[edit]

Sirish Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sirish Hospital" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unable to find any significant coverage of this hospital in independent, reliable sources. Only found run-of-the mill listings -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Jaliya Uduwella[edit]

Jaliya Uduwella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Jaliya Uduwella" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changesor additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sudath Gunasekera[edit]

Sudath Gunasekera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sudath Gunasekera" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria under WP:ANYBIO or WP:PROF. It was previously tagged for notability which was removed by the article's creator without any changesor additional references to support notability on the basis "Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community" Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Subject is only popular/notable amongst Sri Lankan community. DilJco (talk) 00:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment, whether the subject is popular in Sri Lanka or not, the onus is on you to establish their notability in accordance with WP guidelines. Dan arndt (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Anavex Life Sciences[edit]

Anavex Life Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Anavex Life Sciences" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:ORG. Search for sources yields only discussion on penny stock boards, press releases and other WP:SPS, and other poor sources. They have no products on the market so there are no WP:MEDRS sources about their products (which would be for an article about their products, in any case. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

If the nominator used only this very basic search mechanism as shown above, nominator didn't do his homework. Nominator glosses over the fact/refuses to acknowledge that (A) this company is in the research stage for its products (so it cannot have any products for sale, and that is in any case irrelevant to whether it should be listed on Wikipedia or not), (B) has presented at conferences (including ALZ's AAIC 2015), (C) is listed on the US stock market, (D) has been covered by the media, and very significantly, (E) has a trial showing promising results with probably the only drug that corrects protein folding in Alzheimer's patients. Note that the article being nominated for deletion has been very significantly cut down by User:Alexbrn, and after I attempted to restore (asking why it was cut down in the first place, since there were sources), it was reverted by User:Jytdog, claiming there were no sources (there were), then after I added *more* sources, it was again reverted by (apparently) Alexbrn's bot, and after I reverted the bot's edit, was again reverted to its current state by User:Jytdog, who accused me of edit warring, all the while initially reverting my edits/reverts without any reason that didn't lead to a WP page. See history here. --Agamemnus (talk) 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I tried to work with you on the Talk page to find good, independent, secondary sources; all you brought is the same ones above, which are not sufficient to meet NOTABILITY. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I would recommend @Agamemnus: tone it down a notch, and work rather on beefing up the independent, quality sources of the article. Otherwise, a state a clarifying broad opinion below. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Table / allow extended dicussion. I have no final vote on the matter, but am discussing it with others offline to better understand how such decisions should be view. My only present comment is that pharmas should not be viewed through the lens of information technology startups (which often rapidly have products, though rarely making profit on them for years). In the case of small pharma, not yet having a product does not mean that reputable sources will not exist; nor should it being a "penny stock" count against it. Brick and mortar startups have distinct attributes regarding their notability, and if this one has a single compound in the pipeline that has been presented to good press at a national meeting, then it is suitably noteworthy. My view, but again, without a firm vote, yet. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Will be adding citations to a further reading section at that article, but will otherwise make no changes (while this is being moderated). Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We don't "table" AfDs to the best of my knowledge. I looked for sources to show NOTABILITY and found them lacking. If you can find good sources (not crappy ones) to improve the article with, please do - there is no bar to improving an article while an AfD is ongoing. But people will look at what is there, when they arrive here, and each will decide if they want to !vote or not. Jytdog (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Interesting suggestion. The fact that you reverted the bigger article with more sources (and we clearly disagree on whether they are quality sources) means that someone looking at the present cut-down article would be misled. --Agamemnus (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Model for Assessment of telemedicine - MAST[edit]

Model for Assessment of telemedicine - MAST (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Model for Assessment of telemedicine - MAST" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

There are insufficient independent sources to show that this assessment system is notable, per WP:Golden Rule Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so sure about that. these nine all cite PMID 22617736 for starters. PMID 26034465 refers briefly too, saying "The Model for Assessment of Telemedicine applications [21] was chosen for a systematic analysis and description of outputs for NEXES." Suggest this article be either userfied or moved to draft space for further work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talkcontribs) 20:14, 22 July 2015‎ (UTC)
oh the "cited by"! of those,
1 PMID 26034465 / PMC4447233 a primary source that uses MAST framework
2 is the same as #1
3 PMID 25886014 /PMC4336686 (shares authors with prime source) a primary source that uses MAST framework
4 PMID 25659890 / PMC4322202 mentions MAST in passing; describes a competing system for design and evaluation of telehealth interventions
5 PMID 25499592 / PMC4275473 is a primary source that uses MAST framework (shares authors with #8)
6 PMID 24860666 / PMC4016832 is a primary source that uses MAST framework
7 PMID 24464237 / PMC3945538 cites it only to say it will not discuss it
8 PMID 23978690 / PMC3758066 is a primary source that uses MAST framework (shares authors with #6)
9 PMID 23032363 / PMC3510713 gives a passing mention
So... not sure if any of those describe MAST per se. I would agree with the recommendation to move to draft space for more work before it comes back to mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we applying too high a standard to an emerging area? Evaluation of telemedicine is in its infancy. Where are we going to find these independent sources?Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Herbal Remedies[edit]

Scottish Herbal Remedies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Scottish Herbal Remedies" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

This (miscapitalised) article advances the idea that Scottish herbal remedies exist as a distinct thing. They don't as far as I can tell. The sources include advertising, unreliable websites and a couple of book sources that again as far as I can tell, don't actually show Scottish herbal remedies to be a distinct concept. Google search for Scottish herbal remedies (quoted) turns up around 30 unique hits, with this article first. I call WP:SYN if not spam. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment maybe if we remove the worst excesses of the individual treatment info we could consider a move to 'History of herbal medicine in Scotland' - given the subject has a long history of being studied there which continues at universities today, this might not be too controversial.--  14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, I agree that a historical approach would be preferable to one giving a list of ingredients (though the latter approach seems quite popular on WP (Category:Medicinal plants by tradition) but plenty of sources are available which are specific to Scottish herbs (and include or are devoted to aspects of traditional medicine).[4][5][6] And, yes, academics do deal with this specific topic – Celtic Medicine in Scotland.[7] I tend to think "Celtic herbal remedies" or even "Celtic medicine" might turn out to have a good scope so I might favour merging to such an article if one was created. Meanwhile this topic is separately notable. I agree that the title is a descriptive phrase and not a proper noun. Thincat (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete "Scottish herbal remedies" is, so far as I can see, a synthetic topic without any good coverage in RS. Even the arguments above seem to be in favour of other topics rather than the topic in question. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is possible that there is a germ of a topic here. Celtic folk remedies, for example, might work. Such an article would include more than just herbs favored by the Scotts, obviously. One might ask whether this article has anything worthy of keeping in a proposed new article. Alas, I find nothing. The sourcing is atrocious, the claims dubious, and the framing in violation of a number of policies and guidelines. So WP:TNT should be applied and I don't think that a redirect is necessary. jps (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Alternative approaches, as suggested by Thincat and jps might be possible. But those cannot and should not represent the material we have here. This article makes affirmative medical claims, and fails to support them with WP:RS much less WP:MEDRS. Most of the web sources are inadequate. Many of the sources cited by inline citation are simply absent from the reference list; those that are present do not inspire a great deal of confidence. Indeed, at least one is cited defectively: Colonsay, one of the Hebrides was a 1910 book, not by Murdo MacNeill, but by Murdoch McNeill. The assumption of good faith in no way requires me to believe that greater care was taken in analyzing these sources (some of which go back to the 18th century) than was taken in citing them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Universities medical assessment partnership[edit]

Universities medical assessment partnership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Universities medical assessment partnership" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Sending WP:APPNOTE to Graeme Bartlett (who removed prod) and Belovedfreak (who tagged this for notability). Boleyn (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Ranjeet Baral[edit]

Ranjeet Baral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ranjeet Baral" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Fails WP:BIO. Very promotional in tone, edited by single editor from new. Having a range of jobs (itself not uncommon for many medical professionals) or using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia IMHO. kashmiri TALK 23:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"using new techniques is not sufficient for a doctor to be on Wikipedia" the article never mentions the use of any "new" technique but being the first doctor to introduce a special "diagnosis device" in Nepal for diagnosing an impending heart attack. [1] Dr. Baral is known for representing the 2012 London Olympics as team doctor, representing the doctors for the medical commission of Nepal Olympic Committee. [2][3][4][5] DblamaTALK

Sources in books/journals [6] [7] [8], 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - the subject is an active medical professional, but not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete promo advert, no claim of notability in the article, just another medical practitioner, some sources have trivial mentions of the subject, some are written by him, no in-depth coverage anywhere Kraxler (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Swarm we ♥ our hive 06:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Transforming Faces [edit]

Transforming Faces (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Transforming Faces" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

no evidence of notability; this is apparently a promotional articles for the charity. DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. APerson (talk!) 19:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment, moved to Transforming Faces per OTRS ticket 2015062910019478. Nakon 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG for lack of significant coverage by reliable independent sources. The article provides a single source, offline so we can't evaluate it. In a search I found only press releases and unrelated hits. --MelanieN (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
See links below. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 Talk 13:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Search for "Transforming Faces" at the Toronto Star had several mentions [8] and one with more coverage [9]. Currently cited 2005 article preview is here [10]. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 19:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Can't find any coverage beyond that Toronto Star article and a handful of mentions. Sam Walton (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There are more mentions. PubMed: "In recent years the situation has been significantly improved through the intervention of Non Governmental Organisations such as SmileTrain and Transforming Faces Worldwide participating in primary surgical repair programmes." [11] and some others [12] [13] [14] [15]. Plus links on Cleft palate organizations: [16] [17]. I realize this might not be enough for some to !vote keep, but I put the bar lower for charities than for commercial organizations. The article needs work to avoid PROMO, but that can be tagged and the article improved. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. There was a ten-minute radio interview on the canadian version of NPR, which I think has not yet been mentioned.[18] Charity-benefit-cinema in 2014 for the entity.[19] There was a burst of WP:NOTEWORTHY mentions in protest of a poor remake-movie.[20][21][22] This is the Toronto Star, not sure if it is the same as the ones mentioned above, which covers the first recipient of a new program the charity introduced.[23][24] Same story, mentions two visits/surgeries were needed in 2011/2012.[25] Related story with mention of the big event, about financing such surgeries.[26] Maybe-WP:noteworthy mention as part of the obit of one of the senior advisors to the charity, but title of page says this was paid obit, so maybe does not count as wp:rs.[27] Counting the radio-interview, and glomming together the toronto star articles, we have a couple sources with decent depth. Does the charity-benefit-theater with proceeds going to Transforming Faces count? Kinda sorta. The burst of Cavendish-the-villian-related coverage has little depth, but does show that the charity is not ignored by the press, when something relevant arises. Seems like a case where notability is unclear, and maybe merging-n-redirect into a more generic parent article is the way WP:FAILN suggests... but which article would it be a subsection within? Cleft palate charity and facial reconstruction charity do not exist; maybe medical charities for children? Merging the content into a more-highly-trafficked generic article will also help cut down on puffery and WP:SPIP, methinks, but I don't know what the generic article might be, if so. We do have some in-depth coverage, so deletion/userfication seems the wrong way to go, per WP:PRESERVE. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Week keep The Toronto Star article previously mentioned positively in a delete rationale is one of the two sources I see reaching WP:ORG, the other is the ParentsCanada article. I say weak, because the Toronto Star articles URL check at the bottom gives me a bit of pause about the neutrality of the article, but the Toronto Star is IME a pretty reliable source, and ParentsCanada appears to be a less known source, but a published magazine with an editorial process. But I think it's just past the bar. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletions[edit]

An automatically generated list of proposed deletions and other medicine-related article alerts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Article alerts



Deletion Review[edit]

Adding reffs.21:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Spanish Translations[edit]

I was once prominent in the WP:SPATRA (history). My offshoot translations were:

Independent projects:

Former cleanups[edit]

Cleanup Taskforce
Desk Queue: 0
Areas of Expertise
geography, world politics and government

I am no longer a participant in the Cleanup Taskforce. My former contributions are listed below; you may submit a cleanup request here.

AfD[edit]

Abbreviated Deletion Tools
Articles (howto|log)

{{subst:afd}}   {{relist}}
{{subst:prod|why}}

Speedy

{{delete}}   {{db-reason|because}}
{{db-author}}   see cat for more
{{db-nonsense}}   {{nocontext}}
{{db-test}}   {{db-banned}}
{{db-empty}}   {{db-catempty}}
{{db-bio}}   {{db-band}}
{{db-attack}}   {{db-notenglish}}
{{db-copyvio}}   {{db-repost}}
{{db-vandalism}}   {{vandalism}}

Redirects (howto|log)
Miscellaneous (log)
Copyvios (howto|log)

{{rfd}}   {{md1}}   {{copyvio}}

Mergers

{{merge}}
{{mergeto}}   {{mergefrom}}
{{merging}}   {{afd-mergeto}}
{{afd-mergefrom}}

Page moves

{{move}}   {{moveoptions}}
{{CapitalMove}}

Transwiki (howto|log)

{{Move to Wiktionary}}
{{Move to Wikisource}}
{{Move to Wikibooks}}
{{Move to Wikiquote}}

Deletion review, policy, log

I no longer believe in AfD, but I retain this template to help me navigate that wasteland if necessary.