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]

Spondylitis Association of America[edit]

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

Although this may not actually be as blatantly promtional as others, I'm concerned about the almost virtually non-existent good solid coverage. I added a sentence about Rico Brogna being a spokesman but that's the best I could add to my best abilities. My searches were here, here, here, here, here and here. This is an interesting subject and I hope someone familiar with this can improve and move this past its current state. Unfortunately, if a move elsewhere is better, there's no target as this is an orphan unless it's mentioned at the AS article. SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as proba bly the result of undeclared paid editing. What's diagnostic is the statement of origin & motivation: " Her goal was to get word out about ankylosing spondylitis and help support others with this disease". This is a particularly meaningless example, and nobody would use it who wasn't trying to write according to a bad pattern. DGG ( talk ) 23:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

The Survivors Club[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability standards WP:NN. Site was launched and failed in 2009. Relaunched in 2010 with Hearst media. No pages on Wayback machine. Baed on reddit links, looks like in closed in 2011 https://www.reddit.com/domain/thesurvivorsclub.org/
The only verifiable references are: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/29805845/#.Vd40HCiA3kc (incidental mention)
http://www.prlog.org/10930504-hearst-magazines-digital-media-launches-thesurvivorscluborg-on-its-proprietary-platform.html (press release) Wiki-psyc (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thomas A. Narsete[edit]

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

It is rather spammy. The first ref is not reliable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete No indication of notability. Does not pass WP:BIO. It's PR for a small cosmetic surgery business. John Nagle (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete NN per nom. Brianhe (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Does not pass any notability guideline. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Puffery. Non-notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Dabur Honitus[edit]

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

Does not state importance. Charlie the Pig (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, only reference is some sort of bot-generated financials page which isn't even about the product in question. --Ashenai (talk) 09:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 08:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Unambiguous advertising.-- . Shlok talk . 11:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

K.W. Estes Mediceuticals[edit]

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

All my searches instantly found no good coverage or anything even slightly good to suggest keeping. NOTE: I'm also nominating Grand Daddy Purp Collective, Inc for which I found no good results. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

British Association of Cosmetic Doctors[edit]

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

My searches found no good coverage aside from here and here. With this article from December with no significant improvement, it also seems they may have closed as their website no longer works and there are no solid recent mentions (aside from a passing mention from March at a university page. SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's now "The British College of Aesthetic Medicine"; see http://bcam.ac.uk/about-bcam/history/. But my searches for that string in Google Scholar, Google Books and NewsBank UK & Ireland failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG, so delete. Qwfp (talk) 08:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Testosterone replacement therapy in MMA[edit]

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

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Merely stating delete or keep with no rationale is not helpful in building consensus. Consensus is not achieved by counting up votes. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment It would be helpful if the reasoning to the nomination was given - it is not obvious to me.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Assume due to the nature of the sources (seems to be some blogs in there), and the how to manual tone in the intro. I don't think MEDRS applies anywhere in this article since there are no medical claims. Seems fairlyn niche topic,maybe it could be trimmed and merged to the MMA main article? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
      • Non-RS sources can and should be trimmed out and the tone can be modified -neither is a good reason for deletion. In my opinion the MMA article itself is way too large and should be trimmed/out-forked in its own right. Not really relevant to this article I know but I am still struggling to form an opinion on this one - looking at it from a martial arts project perspective.Peter Rehse (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No, none of the sources are salvageable, they are neither RS nor MEDRS compliant. This should be a speedy delete. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I really am sitting on the fence for this one but I take exception to the statement that none of the sources are reliable. The references talk about which MMA fighters are taking the route and what the effect is on the MMA world. Nothing in the article gives medical advice so the specific MEDRS does not really apply. Is the subject important enough for a stand alone article (shrug).Peter Rehse (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS applies to any medical-related information. Not advice.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I think that claiming MEDRS applies to this article is stretching the point. The article makes does not provide medical information about TRT other than the bald statement of what it is - a one liner, which links to the Wikipedia article, although the reference it uses does not appear to mention it. Other than that it is all sports politics. Maybe the title suggests more than the article provides. If the title was to be changed to more accurately reflect the non-medical tone of the contents, perhaps the problem would go away? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The question of whether there is enough reason to justify the existence of the article is another issue. At present I would say not, the material could be merged into another article on MMA dealing with what is or should be allowed. Merge and redirect may be the way to go. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
MEDRS doesn't apply to articles, it applies to information. If there is any medical information in an article it applies to that information. If anyone wants to take something from this article and add it to an MMA article, sure, but there should be no redirect. I was treating this as if it would be merged to Androgen replacement therapy, which none of the information would belong at. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
There are no health claims here, medrs does not apply. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Sentence 1 is a health claim "Testosterone replacement therapy is a treatment that fighters may choose to undergo if they have a testosterone deficiency" -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I can see where you are coming from, but this really is pretty over the top to say MEDRS is needed for this sentence. There is no statement of efficacy. Just stating that some individuals in this sport do this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I disagree, but there is not even an RS source given, just a link to the Cleveland clinic's main page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Medical articles are not in my areas of interest, but it does look like the topic has received coverage. The article could probably be trimmed. I don't know that MEDRS needs to apply to the fact that some MMA fighters used this therapy. I'm leaning towards a weak keep, but I haven't actually taken a good look at the sources yet.Mdtemp (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

3D-printed stethoscope[edit]

3D-printed stethoscope (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "3D-printed stethoscope" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

Unlike some 3D printed objects (such as firearms, for security concerns, or spacecraft) I see little reason for this to be a separate article from stethoscope. Westroopnerd (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, because it's actually a very necessary medical device. The article can be later expanded to cover the Glia project and then renamed. -Mardus (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I also created the article, because otherwise I'd have to re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles, such as in the article about David Littmann, stethoscopes, 3D-printing, and open-source hardware. -Mardus (talk) 22:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Because the 3D-printed stethoscope is an open-source design, it deserves its own article as any other open source software project; Some open source programs are often even more obscure than this particular stethoscope. The device has gained widespread attention in the press, and I am convinced I can add more references from reputable sources. -Mardus (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article fails WP:GNG and the single citation fails WP:MEDRS. Note to Mardus: if you "re-create much of the same text in a number of other articles" without any evidence of notability, your edits will be deleted as spam. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I worded it wrong; I meant to write: "I would have had to re-create much of the same content in many places," which is why I created the article in the first place, so that it could be linked to, instead of having to place the same content everywhere.
Notability of the subject matter is reasonably substantial, but I got tired and went to sleep by the time I was finished with much of the article text. I will add additional citations later. -Mardus (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Rename The artile is titled "3D printed stethoscope". That is like an article on "fast car". There are plenty of notible fast cars, but the concept of a fast car is not inherently notable. I think the Glia stethoscope, the Gila project, or Free Medical hardware movement might be a better focus for the article. (Also, there are other 3-D printed stethoscopes that are not from Gila) Rayc (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Wait - I agree that the current text doesn't make enough of a case for an article, but this device might be a tipping point for something and the topic is still being explored by the media. I'd tend to note this down somewhere to be considered for deletion in a year's time. By then it might have been expanded, or renamed, or it might be no better. Gronky (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to stethoscope, in shortened form. Has coverage, but this is just a peculiar way of producing the same item, so there's just not enough content for a dedicated article.  Sandstein  21:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 03:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

UbiQ[edit]

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

I dePRODed this while clearing expired PRODs. Concern was: Spam, but I think a review by the community would be more appropria.te Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Global Youth Partnership for Africa[edit]

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

My searches simply found no good coverage for this with following results here, here, here (I found the originals here and here). At best, this could've been mentioned elsewhere although there's not much but there's no good target. SwisterTwister talk 03:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 23:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture[edit]

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

No sources in the article since it was created, no evidence of reliable source coverage, fails WP:GNG. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Almost incoherent article pushing fringe medicine. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete The entire article is basically a promotional article for some new alternative medicine intervention, specifically on the theatrical placebo called acupunture. I can’t help but note that that aren't sources (of any kind) to bake the claims made by Jorge Ayoubof — the creator of the new technique described in the aforementioned article — about the efficacy of this fringe practise. No scientific literature is provided by Jorge Ayoub. There are no peer-reviewed sources mentioning 'Brazilian Abdominal Acupuncture', just self-referential materials published by Jorge Ayoub. Almost all the article has been ripped-off from here, thus violating WP:COPY. This article is beyond salvation; it's not worth the trouble. Toffanin (talk) 22:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

List of hospitals in Zamboanga City[edit]

List of hospitals in Zamboanga City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of hospitals in Zamboanga City" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

as per WP:NOTDIR. This list contains no notable entries and including community health centers is just pushing it for content. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge per Lugnuts - No need for a seperate article when it can be merged in to the main one. –Davey2010Talk 18:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. No hospitals listed with articles. If we had articles on some of these we could list those, but Wikipedia is not a medical directory. --Michig (talk) 07:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul Bundi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Paul Bundi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: "Paul Bundi" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

    Non-notable Kenyan doctor. His claim to fame seems to be being the "KCSE best student in Kenya in 2002." I have not done research on his "over 50 published papers", so it is possible he may meet notability that way. Natg 19 (talk) 17:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. When did it become OK to nominate an article for deletion while trumpeting the fact that one hasn't bothered to check the validity of the claims of notability in the article? Did we delete WP:BEFORE and remove the references to it in deletion policy when nobody was looking? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    T U D[edit]

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

    Fails WP:CORP Fiddle Faddle 18:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    CleveMed[edit]

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

    Maybe notable or maybe not, the article is rather promotional either way and my searches found nothing to suggest immediate improvement here, here, here, here, here and here. Considering this is from December 2008 with hardly any significant edits, I hope we can get a consensus. Notifying Ukexpat for comment. SwisterTwister talk 07:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak delete - Looks a little borderline to me. I have no further comment - my involvement was limited to moving the article into draft space and then some post-move clean up after the draft was accepted by someone else. ukexpat (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Kibow Biotech[edit]

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

    I'm not entirely sure if this is notable to Wiki standards and as my searches found nothing good here, here, here, here and here until I found Scholar results here. However, as I'm not familiar with this field, I hope a consensus can be made for this sparsely edited article from July 2009. SwisterTwister talk 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 07:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Canadian Federation of Medical Students[edit]

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

    The article's first sentence would suggest notability, and although I'm not entirely familiar with medical organizations or the medical field in general, my searches found nothing to suggest improvement here, here, here, here, here and here. I hope we can get some insight to this sparsely edited article from October 2007. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    Extreme longevity tracking[edit]

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

    There is no pin citations but nothing here that couldn't be merged into gerontology. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Shields up, Mr. Chekov! All hands, brace for sockpuppets! EEng (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    @EEng: We may have lucked out but can you offer an opinion on the actual AFD before the week ends? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep There are plenty of sources for this article and I believe that some of the previously deleted content should be restored since it doesn't really make any sense to delete an entire field of research that predates the term "gerontology" by three decades. 930310 (talk) 22:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC) 930310 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete/merge to Gerontology or Demography or Longevity. In an abundance of disclosure, I should point out that the article took its current form after I took the knife to it a few months ago (starting here [2]) to remove unreferenced material (much of which probably shouldn't be included even if it had references) and fancruft. After that there's almost nothing left. While certainly many disciplines are interested in good data on lifespans (and those with long ones), this article tries to make it sound like checking people's ages is an extensive discipline with its own literature, which it isn't. The best proof of that is that there was an editor here, now blocked, who certainly would have added cites to such literature if it existed. EEng (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve It's fair to say that some of the prior material was indeed "fancruft", but not the material on the field of research itself. This is a field which has been in existence for at least 140 years (William Thoms establishing the basic premise of the need for age verification in the 1870s). Plenty of sources exist and the article can be expanded, which I will. And although this is arguably a "sub-field", Wikipedia can have articles on sub-fields. -- Ollie231213 (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Ollie231213 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    That someone wrote a book 140 years ago on the problems of verifying ages doesn't make that a field, any more than Galton writing about intelligence [3] made that a field (or at least a notable one). What makes it a notable field is people talking about about it as a field. Where are those sources? EEng (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    There is more than one book to cover this area as a field; in fact, William Thom's (the writer of the 140-year-old book) proposals were adopted by the Institute of Actuaries (based in London) in the 1890s, led by Thomas Emley Young at the time. This same Mr. Young wrote another book on the topic, which inspired others to continue writing about the topic for many more decades to come; even the New York Times covered this topic in 1909 [4], as evidenced by one of the sources in what has been left of the original Wikipedia entry [5]. Lastly, the existence of science conferences on the topic of extreme longevity tracking, such as [6], proves that the area of extreme longevity tracking certainly is a sub-field within demography (sharing overlap with the field of gerontology), instead of just a hobby. Fiskje88 (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    Longevity (how old people get) is a notable topic, but the question here is whether verifying how old a given individual is is a distinct, notable subject. The subject of Young's book is longevity; he naturally debunks famous frauds and emphasizes the importance of skepticism, but that's not the subject of the book. The scientific conference whose program you link is the "10th Supercentenarian Conference"; it's about old people and how old they get, not the activity of figuring out how old they are (though of course there are items on the program related to that). The NYT piece is about trends in longevity, and mentions recent improvements in the quality of longevity statistics, but it's about longevity, not the process of keeping track of who's really old. EEng (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve The extreme longeivty tracking is an interesting field of science, that may interest many Wikipedia users. There are plenty of international organizations, that study the phenomena, International Database on Longevity, Gerontology Research Group, Guinness World Records and other. Also, it can easily be learned from the article's history, that it has been severly affected by destructive edits done by user EEng, who now strongly approves the deletion/merging of the article. That is a proof in itself, that the user's edits were not justified and the user himself never acted in good faith. We must oppose the individual bias and work together to improve the stand alone article. There are many sources, which refer to scientific papers. Considering this, I am more than certain, that the article can be improved. Of course, it should be kept as stand-alone article. White Eaglet (talk) 09:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC) White Eaglet (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep and improve Admittedly the article wasn't properly sourced in the past, yet there are enough reliable sources of note - see my additions and suggestions earlier in this discussion, for instance - to improve the Wikipedia entry and justify its existence. Fiskje88 (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC) Fiskje88 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Delete/merge to Longevity or Gerontology as this is clearly a subset of these areas and not a discipline in and of itself. There's nothing here to this subject beyond "recording the ages of the very old is part of studying population demographics. Validating the ages of the very old by verifying birth and death dates is important in record-keeping and studies because people lie about their age, and validating hard to do because most countries didn't have mandatory birth records until fairly recently." If this was a recognised field of study it would make sense to have its own article but since it isn't and there's next to nothing there, it's better included as part of another article (perhaps replacing Longevity#Long-lived_individuals?) Ca2james (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep and improve I suggest to improve this article. A lot of content have been deleted and/or changed over time and is not up to date.Petervermaelen (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Petervermaelen (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

    Logistics Health Incorporated[edit]

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

    Non-notable insurance business with coverage all sourced to local daily paper; less than 1,000 employees, now a division of a bigger company. Orange Mike | Talk 17:00, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

    From pupulation control to reproductive health[edit]

    From pupulation control to reproductive health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: "From pupulation control to reproductive health" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

    Was dePRODed. Concern was: Written like a personal book review. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Strong keep, and yet consider WP:TNT. The article is in reprehensible condition, beginning right with the misspelled title. Needless to say, if kept, rename to From Population Control to Reproductive Health (with a redirect created that includes the subtitle). That said, this book has apparently received three separate reviews in peer-reviewed journals in the appropriate field, which is pretty much everything we want in evaluating notability for something of this nature.
    It was also reviewed here in The Hindu, although obviously the scholarly sources are of greater weight for a book on medical topics, per WP:MEDRS. This is about the most-clearly-notable book I've ever commented about at AFD, but the content we have now is still startlingly poor. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep, but start over from scratch! Let's not move it until AfD is finished, WP:AFD. --Djembayz (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: I've done some basic clean-up. It would be good to see other editors work on this: in particular, the whole article currently seems to be just an overall outline of the book, citing the book itself as reference, and as no other sources are cited, it currently appears to fail the requirement for providing multiple independent reliable sources. Would it be possible to have some material added that cites the sources given above, and less emphasis on a point-by-point summary of the book? (Also: for those looking for the book itself, it's ISBN 9780761932697 ). -- The Anome (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: I've now chopped out 90% of the article to keep only the very basics, and cited the first and last of the sources above. The second appears to be behind a paywall, so I don't have access to it. Even now, there is still uncited material in the article: it would be good if other editors could contribute to the cleanup. -- The Anome (talk) 09:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment. Whatever happens with this article, copyediting is unlikely to be needed. I removed the tag.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Nadine Burke Harris[edit]

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

    Non notable. What she actually seems to have done is started a clinic and gotten significant publicity. I can find no papers in Google Scholar. No evidence of meeting WP:PROF. It is possible she meets the GNG because of the New Yorker article, but otherwise she is merely one of a team that produced a study.She is on committees but is chair of none of them. She has received no awards. This article needs to be started over., to be written without phrases like "Hailed as a pioneer in the treatment of toxic stress". I have removed some undocumentable claims about her from the article on Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. DGG ( talk ) 04:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    @DGG: I let this stand first time I saw it mostly on the strength of the 2013 and 2015 SF Chronicle and Examiner pieces. What say you about these? Too little to establish notability? — Brianhe (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    The Chronicle article is one on each of their nominees for an award, an award she did not receive. It takes herr at her own word, as principal investigation of the research project , which she was not. The Examiner is more about the project, & again bases its part about her on her. I consider both PR. The problem here is that a great deal of newspaper coverage is PR. AA PR guy who contributes legit here & whom I trust told me that the ideal way to do things is to persuade reporters to write genuine articles about the person or company, and editors to insert them. WP's notability-by-sourcing rules are helpless against such tactics, another reason why I would go by any rational measure of importance. I no longer think the popular press can be trusted as an indicator of notability (FWIW, I've for several years been having this suspicion about New Yorker profiles of various interesting people, and I have not been adding them routinely.) The only thing that ultimately shows notability by sourcing is the historical record, and that too depends on the particular interests of historians, and of course doesn't help us for current topics. We need WP:V, but anything dependent on the subject doesn't even have WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 08:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 11:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Numerous sources here as well as ones in article demonstrate clear notability.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

    Here is some of the ones I found:
    Burke, Nadine J., et al. "The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population." Child abuse & neglect 35.6 (2011): 408-413. The impact of adverse childhood experiences on an urban pediatric population

    Briggance, Bram B., and Nadine Burke. "Shaping America's health care professions: the dramatic rise of multiculturalism." Western journal of medicine 176.1 (2002): 62.

    Scott, Brandon G., et al. "The Interrelation of Adverse Childhood Experiences within an At-Risk Pediatric Sample." Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma 6.3 (2013): 217-229.

    Trade2tradewell (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Delete per excellent comments by DGG. User:Trade2tradewell, those are original papers by the subject, not independent third-party sources and don't seem to me to answer the notability requirement. This is in part my implicit taking of sides with DGG in the effort to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios, even when they have the backing of what I would have expected to be reputable publications. If I have anyhing to do with it, we shall not be content to be "helpless against such tactics". Tomwsulcer, would you do us the favor of not just throwing up a Google search, but rather point to specific entities that demonstrate notability? Brianhe (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


    @Brianhe, I reference those papers because DGG wrote that he could not find anything on Google Scholar, so I pointed out that she does appear in Google Scholar as "Nadine Burke" , see link above. You stated that you are biased even though the objective evidence shows that the sourced publications like The New Yorker, San Francisco Chronicle, The San Francisco Examiner, Los Angeles Sentinel and a news piece from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health are highly reputable. Whether you or me expect them to be reputable or not, The New Yorker is reputable. see here. She has received an award, I just included it on the page a few minutes ago, The James Irvine Foundation 2014 Leadership Award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trade2tradewell (talkcontribs) 22:40, 12 August 2015
    Brianhe, maybe you could do us a favor and not vote "delete" until you've done your homework, such as looking at sources like this one, source says she is winning an award here, she's quoted as an expert here, a source says she is advising Hillary Clinton here, in which it says The San Francisco pediatrician is a key figure in Hillary Rodham Clinton's first philanthropic effort, an initiative to promote scientific studies of early childhood development and research-based policies to help kids. Many more sources possible.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Trade2tradewell I did not say I was "biased"; I said I was persuaded. There's a difference, which you should understand if you'd like to participate in deletion debates. In fact my first statement when I entered this conversation was that I had decided that the subject was notable, so where in the world do you get this idea? Also please sign your comments. Tomwsulcer I guess the right response here is a succinct "all awards are not created equal", and to reiterate that I was persuaded by DGG's analysis that the Chronicle (sfgate.com) sources are now suspect. I think I'm done here. — Brianhe (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    Brianhe so you think this source is inaccurate? What part of it do you think is untrue?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    If true, it contradicts the basic premise of your article, and of your addition to the article on the study, because it says "i n late 2008, a colleague told Burke Harris about the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, a long-term project led by Kaiser Permanente and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. " YouThe articles have been repeatedly insisting that she is the leader of the survey--it seems from this she isn't even involved as one of the leaders, though she may have participated as one of the people in this multi-center study. There might possible be a basis for an article on her, but not by a COI editor. You have shown your inability to write about the subject in a NPOV manner, so there's nothing else to do but to start over. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    DGG, I see your point, that there may be a discrepancy here, resulting in confusion about whether (1) Burke Harris was the leader of a medical movement that figured out the link between adverse childhood stressors (parental divorce, incarceration, abuse etc) and long term health risks later in life or whether (2) Burke Harris implemented study recommendations in her clinic, such as asking about stressors and, if found, getting psychotherapy for her young patients possibly to help ease the stress. Still, DGG if you're right, that simply involves us Wikipedians getting the story right, and in my view, does not affect whether Burke Harris is notable or not. I continue to think she's notable, regardless of whether she was the study pioneer or not, since her role in this area is considerable, with plenty of media attention.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    The solution might possibly be to make an article on the clinic, which is the only thing that appears certain, and the only thing for which there are RSs for notability. BLPs with substantial reliance upon unverifiable claims are normally deleted. DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep - our job is to determine if subject is covered in depth in reliable sources. It is NOT to do an investigation whether or not said coverage is the result of "PR" by a reporter who was persuaded to write an article by the source in order to get a Wikipedia article - that's completely ludicrous and is not policy in any way. Oh and Brianhe it's nice of you to side with DGG's witch hunt "to rid Wikipedia of placed promotional bios," but as someone who was outright accused by DGG as being "clearly" a paid COI editor, I can assure you that DGG's instincts as to what is a promotionally placed bio aren't that great. I'm still waiting for an apology on that one. МандичкаYO 😜 08:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON. See also WP:NOTTEXTBOOK if there are minor inaccuracies in the sources or article, the entire world is welcome to edit. 009o9 (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep does not meet WP:DEL-REASON.Mango 03:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangoclowns (talkcontribs) 28 August 2015‎Mangoclowns (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    BC Biomedical Laboratories Ltd.[edit]

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

    I'm not entirely sure if this is fully notable and my searches found nothing better with the best results here, here and here. There's aso no obviously good move target with the two links being List of companies of Canada and former employee Arun Garg. SwisterTwister talk 23:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 02:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    Ralph G. Walton (doctor)[edit]

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

    Non-notable person. According to this article, Walton is noted for his contributions to methadone therapy in the treatement of heroine addiction, and for his research in to the adverse effects of aspartame. However, there is not sufficient evidence in the article, nor can any be found, of Walton having a significant impact in the field of methadone therapy, and his positions on aspartame have been largely dismissed. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    The article has been revised to include multiple references, including sources that document Walton's contributions to Methadone Maintenance. His work has been validated very scientifically in the published research which is now available in the references section. WikiDan61's claim that his work has been dismissed has not been validated. Where is WikiDan61's references to support this?? All claims refuting Walton's work have been funded by the aspartame industry, and therefore, not credible due to bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drakul Bassarab (talkcontribs) 01:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Comment To clarify, no actual references have been added, only more of Dr Walton's publications. It would be a matter of original research for us to assess the impact of Dr Walton's contributions based solely on his own publications. We would require a secondary source that has already evaluated this impact. No such secondary source has been proffered. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete I am sure everyone recognizes the good intentions of User:Drakul Bassarab in creating this article, however, Wikipedia does not retain articles about individuals in any profession who do fine, professional work. To be here, articles must be about individuals who have produces work that has been recognized by multiple, reliable publications for significant on a professional field, or on the world at large.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete: article does not reflect particular notability as scientist; reads like resume-style hagiography. Also, IMO, one of questionable veracity and dubious and unsourced assertions, which I just removed. Quis separabit? 02:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

    Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater[edit]

    Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: "Food Neophiles: Profiling the Adventurous Eater" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · highbeam · JSTOR)

    Delete This is an utterly non-notable paper, created by Roxydog13 (talk · contribs) who was flagged by Worldbruce (talk · contribs) as being connected to the subject in some way (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PortionScientist). That it got picked up by a few 'food advice' columnists as the 'food advice of the week' is not evidence of notability in any way. The article is simply a basic 'summary' of each sections of the paper, and is not encyclopedic in the least. Additionally, the original article was published on 1 JUL 2015, and has gained zero citations in any scientific journals. Compare this with our truly notable Category:Biology papers, such as The Correlation between Relatives on the Supposition of Mendelian Inheritance cited well over 3000 times. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Delete. I thought there might be something that could be saved here, but on second thoughts, no. The article sounds like it comes out of a women's weekly magazine and even if the tone could be cleaned up, we are no journal dump, especially for non-notable papers like this. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 14:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete. When I saw the title of this I was expecting a diet book not an academic paper. Individual academic papers are rarely notable and a paper analysing a small survey seems incredibly unlikely to buck the trend. Hardly anything here suggests the paper is notable. That it got a bit of news coverage is not surprising or very significant. Pretty much anything written on the subject of diet will get coverage in the health columns of the newspapers and the wackier the better as far as their editors are concerned. The spin being put on this in the article, and in the press coverage, is very dubious. It may be that people who stick to a small number of foods are fatter but the implication that eating a lot of random stuff makes you thinner is so far away from science that the "implications" section could be called "Dodgy inferences and wishful thinking". The criticism section could be retitled "No shit Sherlock" too. Finally there is the comical description of certain foods as "rare". Pork belly? Rare? Don't common pigs have bellies that get sliced up and sold? Kimchi? Rare? Don't the Koreans eat that with almost every meal the same way us fat westerners shovel down the chips/fries? This is hardly written from a global perspective! In short, this article has provided me a little innocent amusement but it doesn't belong here and it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    Association of British Veterinary Acupuncturists[edit]

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

    Localized organization and, although I found a source saying it's the only group that "is the only veterinary association with a major interest in acupuncture", my searches found nothing good here (Books), here and here (republished PR in Coventry Evening Telegraph) and here (Scholar). Some of the Books sources say they have several affiliates but I'm not seeing a good move target for this orphaned article. SwisterTwister talk 18:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Some reasonable coverage in books and also some basic news coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete just another professional association, only source is their own website, no coverage, fails WP:ORGDEPTH Kraxler (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete The only scientific literature mentioning Association of British Veterinary Acupuncturists is this paper published by the Journal of the British Veterinary Association (formerly a British Medical Journal publication) — Journal of BVA is a low-impact factor (see here) peer-reviewed magazine. The linked paper mentioning ABVA is authored by ABVA itself, so it's a self-promotional publication. The entire topic of veterinary acupuncture is a mixture of alternative medicine and fringe quackery. Toffanin (talk) 10:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

    Peter Hurley (doctor)[edit]

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

    An accomplished but otherwise non notable doctor. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Delete. No especial notability. Looks like a memorial. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89(T·E·C) 02:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete No indication of notability. Yet another in the plethora of articles about St Peter's College old boys who clearly fail WP:N. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 04:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete I have used the search term "Peter Hurley nz -photographer" (without the quotation marks, of course) on Google to see what shows up, and Dr Hurley does not appear to have an online presence of a contemporary person who meets notability criteria. Schwede66 06:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete per Duffbeerforme clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep He made an important contribution to the development of nuclear medicine in Auckland. I have referenced a published history with a description of his role. He is notable as a pioneer of nuclear medicine rather than as a photographer.Rick570 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
    Apart from tidying up an already existing department at a hospital exactly what did he pioneer in the field of nuclear medicine. There is nothing in the biography to make him particularly notable. NealeFamily (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment found some sources. Leading number is # cites according to google scholar:
    • 477 Strauss, H. William, Barry L. Zaret, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A scintiphotographic method for measuring left ventricular ejection fraction in man without cardiac catheterization." The American journal of cardiology 28, no. 5 (1971): 575-580.
    • 248 Zaret, Barry L., H. William Strauss, Peter J. Hurley, T. K. Natarajan, and Bertram Pitt. "A noninvasive scintiphotographic method for detecting regional ventricular dysfunction in man." New England Journal of Medicine 284, no. 21 (1971): 1165-1170.
    • 99 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "The distribution of radio-iodinated serum albumin and low-density lipoprotein in tissues and the arterial wall." Atherosclerosis 11, no. 1 (1970): 77-103.
    • 115 Pritchard, David A., Bramah N. Singh, and Peter J. Hurley. "Effects of amiodarone on thyroid function in patients with ischaemic heart disease." British heart journal 37, no. 8 (1975): 856-860.
    • 93 Hurley, Peter J. "Red cell and plasma volumes in normal adults." Journal of nuclear medicine: official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine 16, no. 1 (1975): 46-52.
    • 72 Smith, H. J., B. N. Singh, R. M. Norris, M. B. John, and P. J. Hurley. "Changes in myocardial blood flow and ST segment elevation following coronary artery occlusion in dogs." Circulation research 36, no. 6 (1975): 697-705.
    • 59 Scott, P. J., and P. J. Hurley. "Demonstration of individual variation in constancy of 24-hour urinary creatinine excretion." Clinica chimica acta 21, no. 3 (1968): 411-414.
    ...
    Not sure, but leaning keep. User:Rick570, Do you want to do the work to integrate these works? I strongly suggest that you work out how to use google scholar if you're going to be writing about academics. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep He probably satisfies WP:ACADEMIC, as the founder of a department of nuclear medicine and a co-author of quite a few highly-cited articles.[7] Unfortunately all of the article's references are offline so they can't really be evaluated, but for someone who died in 1983 that's not too surprising. It sounds as if he gets a significant chapter in the Bruce White book; presumably the Auckland Star and New Zealand Herald articles are obits which also suggests at least some notability. I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. --MelanieN (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    Comment I have incorporated a list of Hurley's research publications as researched by talk|Stuartyeates. Rick570 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    Let's fly wisely[edit]

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

    This event, originally described as a "history-making event" in which the first FAA-approved drone was used to make a delivery, appears more to be a research/demonstration event in the FAA's ongoing efforts to investigate the uses of drone technology. It was a single research demonstration event, not a "history-making breakthrough". As such, I don't believe it deserves its own stand-alone article. The event may merit mention in other articles on drones, such as delivery drone or Regulation of unmanned aerial vehicles, but it does not merit its own article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 23:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 15:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete Per nominator, WP:1E. Possible inclusion on another related article, but not non-notable for standalone. Jppcap (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

    Timothy Harlan[edit]

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

    My searches found nothing outstandingly good to suggest improvement, here, here, here, here and here. There's never been any significant improvement and from the signs of it, there isn't any anytime soon. SwisterTwister talk 05:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 09:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Weak keep I found a more recent book and added it--a book which seems much more important, or at least much more widely held, than his earlier ones: There seem to be a fe minor reviews for it. Overall, it might be a notable career. DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 15:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

    Herbert Hinzie Kersten[edit]

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

    Apparently the creator of the Georgia Guidestones. However, the most I can find to support this claim is his own words. Seems more like a hoax to me than anything else. Westroopnerd (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

    If you watch the documentary "Dark Clouds Over Elberton" the evidence of Kersten being R.C. Christian is 100% factual. The mystery of his identity is now a closed case. (talk)

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete I don't know what to make of this claim, but I cannot find sources for "Herbert Hinzie Kersten". If there is anything ot the claim that this retired physician created the Georgia Guidestones, that information should be added to that article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

    Again, if people only took the time and read what I wrote then there would be no need for any further comments regarding this issue. The case is closed, his identity is confirmed and the link to the documentary, "Dark Clouds Over Elberton", is available in the reference section. The documentary is very new and has been five years in the making. It will take some time before it will be quoted frequently on the internet. MrMojoRisin71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

    I can also add that the the person at 3:06 in the trailer for "Dark Clouds Over Elberton" (available on Youtube) is one Stephen G. Kersten, a Iowa judge. Herbert H. Kersten was his uncle. He is heard saying "My uncle was a very intelligent man. Being told this is not a big surprise". So you can draw that confirmation from the trailer alone. MrMojoRisin71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 03:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete The author of the film is clearly a conspiracy theorist, the film fails WP:RS.[8] Doug Weller (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    What do you mean "conspiracy theorist"? The filmmakers are the only ones up until today that managed to get any information out of Wyatt Martin. Prior to this documentary he was the only one alive that knew the true identity of R.C. Christian. Watch the trailer and look how it happened. MrMojoRisin71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Delete due to absence of reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

    Don't delete All I can say is that it's going to be a stupid decision to delete this entry. All it will do is to postpone it a few weeks, maybe a few months until enough people have seen the documentary and it goes viral on the internet and someone else will create the same entry but with a different wording. Why is it so hard to accept that some people finally got to the bottom of this and earned enough respect from Wyatt Martin to get the last missing pieces of the puzzle? Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't. Wiki is going to look like fools if this entry is deleted just for someone to put it up again, in due time, and for it to stay forever. Well, it's your call but all the yahoos posting here haven't even seen the documentary. Yet they obviously have an opinion like the self-righteous morons they are. MrMojoRisin71 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

    Magnetizer[edit]

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

    Nothing here that isn't in Animal magnetism, & I don't think article title is a suitable redirect.TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Comment Isn't this substantially a list?--Savonneux (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep I agree that the article isn't very good. (That's not my fault -- all I did was make a Redirect.) But let's leave at least a Redirect. The reason I created the Redirect was that I heard someone use the word "magnétiseur" in French, and I wanted to know what it was. So I found it on the French Wikipedia. But there was no link to an English Wikipedia article. So I went to the trouble of searching for an article in the English Wikipedia that talks about these people, and then created an "article" (really just a Redirect) so that people can click on the link in non-English Wikipedias and find the article "Animal magnetism" in English. So please don't undo my work just because the article now is not of the highest quality, or for some other reason. (Find something else to do please.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Merge and disambiguate It's a list-ish article with few sources and a confusing name. Could easily be merged into Animal Magnetism as a list of practitioners. The term 'magnetizer' is used more often in the sense of 'Give magnetic properties to; make magnetic' per Magnetism and not Animal Magnetism making this potentionally confusing as well.--Savonneux (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —JAaron95 Talk 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Keep Article animal magnetism does not have the necessary explanations, found in article magnetizer (magnetizer, mesmerizer, mesmerists and magnetists), as Mr. TheLongTone says. I believe we should also explain the difference between magnetizer and hypnotist (to enrich the theme). The Mr. Savonneux comment about being a possible list, He that would be a reference to the issue, identic to Nobel Prize (although there list), and to remedy the confusion referred, I suggest a disambiguation of the term, because merge or delete the article is take "effect for the cause" (Scientist - Science, Philosopher -Philosophy and etc, etc.), so the improvement of the article is required, but not to excluded.Rodrigo Elias Cardoso (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:19, 26 August 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.