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]

Shah Aqeeq Baba[edit]

Shah Aqeeq Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Shah Aqeeq Baba" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Declined a test-page speedy, but a good faith search is not showing independent, reliable sources for notability. Normally I'd just speedy this, but given that he lived almost 700 years ago and sources may not be in English, I think more eyes are needed on this. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete no main content and no references - user can add to existing draft User:Hammadsaeed/sandbox and proceed with article via AfC until its more suitable. KylieTastic (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject isn't notable. All that I found about the subject online are Pakistani blogs, so this could be a hoax for all I know. If there are sources, this content should be developed at Wali before being spun out to a standalone article. I'd also note that the talk page is filled with suspicious SPAs I'm going to take to SPI momentarily, so I expect that they'd show up here, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete until there's actual content to begin with. A draft already exists as KylieTastic mentioned, so I'm not feeling sorry for deleting-but-not-really-deleting this page. Besides, most South Asian saints tend to have no more than a very local "fame", so I would not be surprised if notability through independent sources can not be demonstrated. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures[edit]

List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "List of suicides that have been attributed to academic pressures" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This is an indiscriminate list of events of tenuous notability. None of the people listed here seem to be notable, and the disproportionate geographical coverage is problematic in terms of article balance. Slashme (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete - sources are dubious, slanted towards Singapore and makes no credible assertion as to why "academic pressure" suicides warrant a separate article from List of suicides. DrStrauss talk 14:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete complete WP:UNDUE towards Singapore. It's even more pointless listing non notable cases unless you're going to include reported cases from all around the world not just Asia. Also potential WP:OR unless a coroner has ruled clearly academic pressure. LibStar (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list relating to non-notable peoples. Sources are questionable and almost possibly violates WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete, violates WP:NPOV/WP:NOR as per above, and no entries are notable. ansh666 19:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, Unless a coroner in any of the cases mentioned on this list attributed those deaths to “academic pressures” and this can be evidenced then the assertion that the deaths had been in anyway attributed to this factor is mere hearsay. I do not believe Wikipedia is a place for hearsay or improperly referenced content or indeed lists of improperly referenced content. Furthermore, “academic pressures” is not an official cause of death, suicide is and that has many contributing factors which doctors carefully decide on for a very good reason. In the absence of any evidence based on doctors themselves stating this as a major contributing factor for large quantities of suicides it would be improper for us Wikipedia editors to state it for them. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Possible ethical/legal issue Also, do we have consent from the appropriate person(s) to display the names of those they have post-death guardianship over on Wikipedia for their apparent suicide related death? ὦiki-Coffee(talk to me!) (contributions) 18:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete. Per WP:LISTN, list articles need sources per WP:Golden Rule that the subject is notable; there are probably are sufficient sources (e.g. NYT and others), but they are not deployed here. Also, as others have noted above, this is an extremely delicate topic (especially with regard to the risk - which is very real - of contagion through publicity (see Suicide#Media) and there is a huge risk of WP:BLP issues with respect to recently deceased people, as well as abuse of sources -- all of which is described above already. It might be possible to create a decent article but this is not it, and it needs WP:TNT. Jytdog (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Appears to be original research, no evidence that this grouping meets WP:LISTN. – Joe (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - List is original research, made up (almost?) entirely of non-notable individuals/events, etc. Also, I think that the sensitivity of this issue and the inclusion of addresses (often home addresses) and direct quotes from primary source newspapers about of details seems unethical. Smmurphy(Talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment (Weak Delete, but taking issue with some of the reasons for deletion above, and with a suggestion) - A basic search for sources (and glance at those included) shows that there many instances that can be verified (including from e.g. coroners). Verification is not enough, but it instantly eliminates all of the claims that this is original research. Likewise, suicide due to academic pressures is absolutely a notable subject. In the US/UK it may not stand out among other causes of suicide, but in places like South Korea, Singapore, and Hong Kong, it's at worst an epidemic or at best a moral panic (worst/best admittedly unnecessarily loaded terms here). Either way, it's the subject of popular and scholarly articles alike. I'm not surprised that the user(s) who started the list focused on Singapore, as that's one of the places that struggles with the problem -- and being incomplete is not a reason for deletion, so I don't know why that's even coming up here. All this said, obviously I haven't jumped in with a keep !vote (and not just because the current is pushing too hard the other way). While there are a ton of sources on the subject, I'm not seeing sufficient published lists of examples to justify keeping per WP:LISTN. The sources and the best-covered examples, however, would be useful seed material in an article along the lines of academic pressures and suicide (perhaps focusing on a particular country/region). I'd encourage Jfanderson68 to explore such a project. I started to create a stub just now myself, but didn't feel like I have the time to write something that would do justice to the serious subject. If Jfanderson68 (who created this list) is interested, however, and wants help, I hope he/she will leave a message on my talk page. If this is deleted, Jfanderson68, know that an admin can always resurrect the content should the e.g. sources be useful down the road. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Rhododendrites: Compiling a list of instances from primary sources that have not previously been listed together in reliable secondary sources is original research in my book. – Joe (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete Alot of unknowns, and not to mention an obvious WP:OR violation. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Genomic Quirks (Book)[edit]

Genomic Quirks (Book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Genomic Quirks (Book)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non notable book fails WP:NBOOK and the creator is a WP:SPA editing only on one subject and creating WP:SOAPBOX articles Domdeparis (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete The one source that provides information about the book is the authors own website. There are no reviews. Material the book contains has been used as a course 'hand-out' by the author. My searches found nothing helpful. Currently fails WP:NBOOK. At some future time it may satisfy WP:TBK. Gab4gab (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Seitai[edit]

Seitai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Seitai" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Obvious promotion of the subject.

Although still biased, maybe the article could be restored up to this edition. In the next revision, the content was substituted with the current spam by a cross-wiki single-purpose account, Katsumi Mamine (originally, Fundación SEITAI Barcelona, globally renamed after I had told the user that name wasn't acceptable - see es:User talk:Katsumi Mamine). Sabbut (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete: Obviously this is pseudoscience, coupled with linguistic confusion. (Why are JAPANESE words in capitals?) It could be described from outside, if a rational is found, but even the earlier revision is frankly awful. WP should not include (non-quoted) sentences that open with "Technically", followed by complete nonsense. Imaginatorium (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Sequencing.com[edit]

Sequencing.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Sequencing.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Non-notable company that fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. The article appears to be a promotional article about a company that has received no non-press release coverage in independent secondary sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

(Find sources: "Sequencing.com" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)
Chicago Tribune source is the only major independent source, and it is not about the company, but about a person who went to the founder of the company. First world med is recycling the Yahoo Finance press release, Concierge Medicine is a press release, and the subsequent story isn't independent since they are in partnership. Final source is also a press release. The Genome Web source is the only one that gives in-depth coverage,and it reads like a routine trade publication article when a new company is founded and sends out a press release. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: Genome Web is the authoritative media outlet for genomics industry and they only cover notable industry news. Their coverage is several pages long and appears as an objective assessment of the company. The other articles appear supportive of notable company coverage although I understand your dismissiveness of First world med article. 207.97.161.50 (talkcontribs)
You only get to vote once. Please strike one of your two !votes. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • merge to Brandon Colby; WP:TOOSOON. The only good source is the genomeweb article (and it is a good source). There is one other "independent" source, by freelancer Barbara Sadick (here) that was syndicated in a bunch of Tribune Publishing papers in June 2016. There is no encyclopedic content about the company that can be generated from it (it was nice marketing work though). So for now merge, and it can grow there and be SPLIT if that ever becomes necessary. Jytdog (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
NB - the page as I found it here was a nightmare of press releases and other SPS refs. I cleaned it up and it looks like this now. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. It is so easy to look at an overstuffed PROMO and just decide not to tackle it. Hats off to you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:ORG. DrStrauss talk 09:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Brandon Colby for lack of Reliable, independent sources. Colby (or someone working with/for him, may be a serial creator not only of non-notable pages, but of at least one other possibly non-notable company, Existence Genetics.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SPARC Innovation Program[edit]

SPARC Innovation Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "SPARC Innovation Program" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Kind of spammy and insufficient references to support notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  • delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
"insufficient references to support notability" doesn't count? Fyddlestix (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Right, see WP:N#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an articleUnscintillating (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge  as per evidence provided by Fyddlestix.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to this section of the Mayo Clinic Center for Innovation article. The SPARC program was re-named the "Design Research Studio" (see this source), and there is already a small section on it there. Under that name, I find some brief/passing mentions in RS that are certainly complimentary, but which don't look to cover the subject in sufficient depth to establish notability for a separate article. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Laurie Proton Therapy Center[edit]

The Laurie Proton Therapy Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "The Laurie Proton Therapy Center" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Not seeing sufficient notability Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Royal Institute of Health Technology, Ifo[edit]

Royal Institute of Health Technology, Ifo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Royal Institute of Health Technology, Ifo" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Outside of the school's own website and FB page, can't seem to find any evidence this Nigerian medical school exists. DarjeelingTea (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Not even sure Ogun State College of Health Technology passes our GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 23:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
There's an existing consensus to keep schools, especially higher institutions once their existence can be verified in reliable sources, even without necessarily passing GNG. I think a merge proposal will be in order since it has been established that its affiliated with Ogun State College of Health Technology. Darreg (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the "Royal" part of RIHT is self-conferred (there's not even a claim that it was bestowed by any specific person), so I wondered if the "affiliation" was also self-conferred. I discovered the nature of that affiliation and have added it to the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and as there is no sign of meeting GNG. Jytdog (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have searched extensively and found very little independent information, only a mention that a notable state college approved this private occupational college to offer a few recognized courses. This I have added to the Ogun State College of Health Technology article, which is sufficient. Jack N. Stock (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC

Eugen Kubala[edit]

Eugen Kubala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Eugen Kubala" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

A promising young scientist, but at the moment there are no reliable and independent sources confirming that he meets WP notability standards. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics. No indication his work is impactful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete fails GNG, created by SPA (contribs) Jytdog (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete As per nom- the lack of coverage in reliable sources means that notability of this young academic has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC or WP:ACADEMIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Ali Montazeri[edit]

Ali Montazeri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Ali Montazeri" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources in the article are written by the subject, and searching mostly gives sources for the unrelated person Hussein-Ali Montazeri. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google Scholar shows a h-index of 54 and a dozen highly cited papers, suggesting the subject passes WP:PROF#C1. Does need additional independent sources but these are likely to be available, in Persian if not in English. – Joe (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Stunning pass of WP:Prof#C1 on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC).
  • Keep -- Prof#C1 must be there for a reason, and this article passes. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete yes he has published, but there is a paucity of sources about him with which to craft an NPOV article. To folks making !votes that just cite "WP:Prof#C1 and the like, please actually read the guideline. None of those are automatic "passes" to N and there are no independent RS for the basic facts here. The current aritcle is just a puff piece advertising how great he is, created by a SPA (contribs). Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
there are 11466 sources about his work on GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
by "GS" I assume you mean "Google scholar" and if so, what you wrote is meaningless and i am sorry to say incompetent.Jytdog (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
(edit conflict) That's uncalled for. Maybe you misunderstood what Xxanthippe was saying? Each of the papers that cite Montazeri are independent reliable sources that discuss his work, at least in a small way. Google Scholar (GS) gives us a good estimate of how many there are: 11466. Clearly then, there are plenty of sources for writing about Montazeri's work, even if we don't have many sources about him. Making this assessment is exactly why WP:PROF exists – and I can assure you that everybody in this discussion, being regulars at academic AfDs, has "actually read" the guideline. There is also the fact that it would be very unusual for an academic of Montazeri's standing not to have been the subject of biographical publications in his own country, although unfortunately nobody with the language skills to verify that is available. In other words, the current article may not be well written or well sourced, but sources are definitely available, so we can get there eventually. – Joe (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
No, Google scholar does not separately count citations. Also incompetent. Please read Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and also Google_Scholar#Limitations_and_criticism. It includes lots of garbage and dupes and is game-able. The raw number is meaningless.Jytdog (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The more conservative citation metrics reported by Scopus (5484, h-index 41) and Web of Science (1776, h-index 20) also show that the subject is a highly-cited researcher. In my mind there's no doubt that he has made a significant impact in his field, passing WP:PROF#C1, and you haven't really offered an argument to the contrary, only repeatedly attacked our competence. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at a more reasonable citation source. With regard to the putative lack of reason from my side, I said that there are insufficient sources about this person to create a well-sourced NPOV article about him. Which you have not addressed. Instead of actually working on the article you think is keep-able, you are wasting time making checkbox arguments that really don't mean anything, exactly per PROF. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
And as I and others have mentioned multiple times above and below, WP:PROF does not require sources about a person. Sources about their work are sufficient to write a basic academic biography. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very clear pass of WP:PROF#C1. I know too little about Iranian academia to find other aspects of notability for him (for instance I don't know whether his being editor-in-chief of IJPHSD should count for #C8), and searches are made more difficult by the similarity of names to Hussein-Ali Montazeri, but it seems likely that they also exist for those who can read Farsi. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • comment - I encourage folks who are !voting keep to spend some time and try to make an NPOV, well-sourced article about this person, instead of making abstract claims. Jytdog (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:Prof gives a useful guide to evaluating the notability of academics/scholars/researchers. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
That has nothing to do with what I wrote, and additionally no guideline including PROF offers an automatic green light. We need to be able to write an NPOV, well sourced encyclopedia article. Jytdog (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog Your approach to Wikipedia editing can be seen on your user page. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC).
Yes, I describe it there: User:Jytdog. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
It seems that your views on Wikipedia editing are outside consensus. It might be better get your views agreed to on policy pages before attempting to impose them on individual AfDs. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
  • I went over the article carefully and removed a boatload of unsourced promotional content like:
    • "Since his graduation from University of Glasgow, he has introduced the topic to the Iranian academic community and developed several internationally known instruments for measuring health and patient-reported outcome in Iran. He is the pioneer of this topic in Iran and is a well-recognized scientist internationally for his works in this field."
    • "Montazeri is among few investigators who for the first time proved that health-related quality of life is a prognostic factor for cancer survival."
    • "Montazeri made a substantial contribution to breast cancer prevention in Iran."
    • "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. He has published more than any investigator on breast cancer in Iran."
      • Let me just repeat that one again: "(his publications) are considered an asset for the country. " (????)
    • "His bibliographic review of the literature on the quality of life in breast cancer patients from 1974 to 2007 is one of the most comprehensive existing piece of evidence that covers all aspects of breast cancer treatment and quality of life."
I looked for independent sources about him and found none - i used his linkedin profile and CV to be able to write something but these are both SPS. I did find that someone posted an identical article on another wiki, here. There appears to be a full-court promotional press going on for this guy.
The article as it stands is SPS + a description of a few of his papers. This is completely invalid; a pubmed search shows he has 308 papers. The papers that are described in the article now appear to be randomly chosen; shall we describe all 308? If not, what is the basis for choosing these? ack.
Again there are insufficient secondary sources about him with which to generate an NPOV, well-sourced article. This is Wikipedia 101 stuff. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but this is all FUD. Deletion is not cleanup: promotional content can be salvaged, which you have just shown yourself. 99% of academics don't have enough sources about them to pass the WP:GNG, because sadly we live in a society that prefers to spend its ink on chronicling the lives of "celebrities" of varying levels of achievement and not people who make an enduring, historically significant contribution to the sum of human knowledge. This is why we have WP:PROF as an alternative to the GNG: it allows us to assess whether a person is notable on the basis of what people have written about their work. In my experience, if someone passes WP:PROF it is always possible to write a decent article based on a combination of things like faculty profiles (which are not independent, but are widely accepted to be reliable sources for uncontroversial biographical details like where a person went to school) and citations to scholarly papers that cite/discuss their work. You may not like that WP:PROF is an alternative to the GNG, but that is very clearly the long-standing consensus, which isn't going to be overturned in a single AfD. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete on second thoughts; Jytdog's arguments are convincing, while a promotional campaign is a concern. Overall, this appears to be the case of WP:TOOSOON. No prejudice to recreation if can be done with reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
How can you say that a BLP with a GS h-index of 54 is "Too soon"? How big would it have to be to satisfy you that it was not "Too soon"? I note that promotional material has been removed. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC).
WP is not some directory where meeting some criteria gets you "in". (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) In other words, there is no such thing as automatic notability; there have to actually be independent reliable sources with which to build an actual article. We have to write articles. Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment the raw number of citations does not show influence on the profession, and neither does the h index. What shows an influence in the subject is highly cited papers, not the total, not the average. No amount of low quality or mediocre work gives influence,only really important work will do it. And even an isolated single highly cited paper does not necessarily show influential work, because the person might have been a junior author as a student. There is no mechanical way of judging citations. And as far as absolute numbers go, it's entirely field dependent. a paper with 50 citations is important in mathematics, and trivial in biomedicine. It's also chronology-dependent: a paper with 100 citations in biomedicine was very significant indeed 40 years ago, but considerably less significant now. The only way an argument based on them can be valid is if it represents an intelligent summary of the citation record.
there have, btw, been several studies of the relation of GS counts to WOS and Scopus, and they have all shown that in most fields, the GS figure is twice the others, but the pattern is otherwise the same. WOS remains the gold standard in fields where it applies, but GS is an adequate surrogate. DGG ( talk ) 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep In this particular case, examining the citation and the papers, he is the senior author of several important surveys which have been widely cited: 714, 515, 375, 299, 247, 263, 256, (25 papers with over 100 citations each) This is enough to show that he is an expert in his primary field, which is cancer epidemiology in Iran, and to a considerable extent the broader field of Iran epidemiology. The current version, thanks to the excellent editing of Jytdog, is no longer promotional -- it was a matter of removing adjectives and evaluative statements--the facts speak for themselves in showing notability , as they ought to. Thew point of WP:PROF is that secondary information about his work is unnecessary as long as the properly analyzed statistics show the notability . WP:PROF is not a supplement to the GNG, and not a matter of presumed notability -- it's explictly an alternative. True, among the many papers cited it we could find 3rd party evaluations of the work--this would add to the article, but it isn't necessary in order to keep it. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
So interesting. This "article" is a piece of shit even after my efforts; all i did was polish a turd. There is nothing we can say about this person, as we have no sources about him to summarize. I do not understand the !keep votes, at all. Jytdog (talk) 05:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
[9] Xxanthippe (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
I understand the arguments being made to !keep; I think they are the corrupt product of a walled garden. They are out of sync with how WP works, overall. Jytdog (talk) 05:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
What walled garden is this? Who or what is corrupt? Xxanthippe (talk) 08:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC).
You aren't listening and I am not going to clutter this up further. Other folks will weigh in with time. Jytdog (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
You're selling yourself short, the current article is a perfectly acceptable start-class biography that can hopefully be expanded in the future with access to Farsi sources. – Joe (talk) 10:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see public health as a "significant subdiscipline". PROF#C1 states "For the purposes of satisfying Criterion 1, the academic discipline of the person in question needs to be sufficiently broadly construed. Major disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, history, political science, or their significant subdisciplines (e.g., particle physics, algebraic geometry, medieval history, fluid mechanics, Drosophila genetics are valid examples). Overly narrow and highly specialized categories should be avoided. Arguing that someone is an expert in an extremely narrow area of study is, in and of itself, not necessarily sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1, except for the actual leaders in those subjects." Public health is not cancer research but rather the application of medicine to large populations. The titles (e.g., "Does knowledge of cancer diagnosis affect quality of life", "Cancer disclosure", "... communication with cancer patients") cited in the article do not suggest broad significance but do suggest a narrow slice (subsubdiscipline) of public health. The focus is neither epidemiology nor cancer mechanisms. When I read the article I thought the argument would be PROF#C8, but there are no claims here that the journals are major in their field. The person is significant in his field, but the field is too narrow. Glrx (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Public health not a "significant subdiscipline"? I can find at least eleven Wikipedia articles that begin with the words"Public health". It's not a subdiscipline but a major discipline of crucial importance to populations throughout the world. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
It's always difficult to judge by incoming links, because sometimes they really are put there by a promotional campaign. But in de-orphaning the article today I found that (despite the language barrier) we already had two references to his publications, from General Health Questionnaire and from Cancer (not a significant subdiscipline??!?). The GHQ one appears to have been added as part of the initial creation of the article and the Cancer one was added in 2011 (diff); neither editor who added them seems to have any connection to Montazeri nor to be anything other than a good-faith Wikipedia contributor. So I think Jytdog owes those two editors an apology. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that public health is a subdiscipline of medicine, but it does not seem to meet the notion of PROF#C1. The county public health doctor is the guy who imposes quarantines, makes sure the water supply is good, and shuts down the bad restaurants. The subject of this article seems to focus not on DGG's cancer epidemiology (looking for new cancer agents or genes), but rather questionaires, patient impact, bedside manner, and the merits of self-screening. Yes, those things need study, but the focus is narrow. That's why I quoted some of his paper titles.
The given links do not strengthen the case. Going to General Health Questionnaire (an article of two short paragraphs about a psychiatric evaluation questionaire) shows that he was involved in the Persian translation of the GHQ and its subsequent testing. None of the other cited authors are WL'd. Going to Cancer finds "Montazeri, A (December 2009). "Quality of life data as prognostic indicators of survival in cancer patients: an overview of the literature from 1982 to 2008". Health Qual Life Outcomes. 7: 102. doi:10.1186/1477-7525-7-102. PMC 2805623. PMID 20030832." Neither the paper title nor the journal title instills confidence in WP:N. The reference is used to support the statement that patients who report higher quality of life tend to live longer. Sounds like an expected result. The guy is doing what scientists are supposed to do, but where is the evidence that he has had a significant impact on a significant subdiscipline of medicine? That impact should be more than translating questionnaires and checking the reliability of answers.
Currently, the article says he published some papers and uses citations to those papers as sources. That does not show the significance of the papers. Glrx (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The significance of the papers is indicated by the number of times they have been cited by other scientists. In this case, rather a lot. If a paper is insignificant, it doesn't get cited at all. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC).

Paramedics (TV series)[edit]

Paramedics (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Paramedics (TV series)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This article fails WP:GNG. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Trauma: Life in the E.R. per AdventurousSquirrel. It is admittedly hard to search for sources due to the show's rather generic name, but I have been unable to find anything substantial about it. However, like said above, it would be fine to include the information on it in the article of the show it was a spinoff of. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge to Trauma: Life in the E.R. . Minimally sourced, mostly OR. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Desert Springs Hospital[edit]

Desert Springs Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Desert Springs Hospital" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

Private hospital with no evidence of any notability. Apparently a few celebreties have been treated there but this appears to be either hearsay or information released contrary to medical ethics. Very highly advertorial in style. No refs speak to notability. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   01:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • delete advertisement for the hospital. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep No compliance with WP:Before. Fair number of articles on High Beam. Notable enough per WP:GNG. Treating celebrities is part of what they do. The statement "hearsay or information released contrary to medical ethics" is an irrelevant unsupported Ad hominem attack, and near libelous. Content and style is restrained, not Wikipedia:Advertising. 7&6=thirteen () 14:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 03:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
When I say "advertisement for hospital" I meant that it was (before i cleaned it up, in this version) almost entirely sourced from the hospital's website and of course a third of the content was "Awards and Accolades", of course sourced only from the organization's website. Per WP:PROMO Wikipedia article's are not meant to just be proxies for an organization's website. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:ORG. 2 of the sources confirm celebrities were treated there. the other sources merely confirm the hospital exists. LibStar (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Lucatumumab[edit]

Lucatumumab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: "Lucatumumab" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · HighBeam · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · The Wikipedia Library · NYT · WP reference)

This drug candidate was found not to be efficacious and never made it past Phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Keep – Regardless of the efficacy or usefulness of the drug, this topic nevertheless meets WP:GNG, albeit on a possibly weaker level, because it has received enough independent coverage to qualify for an article. See some source examples below. North America1000 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete unless evidence of actually significant secondary coverage emerges. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • of the refs brought above:
A search on pubmed for reviews finds 4 refs in English. PMID 25249370 is like the OKish refs above, and just summarizes the Phase I paper. PMID 24555495 however has extensive discussion of the published science around this mAb as of its date (it was received in Sept 2013). PMID 19362983 is from 2009 and is very brief. It discusses 2 small Phase I trials under the old development name HCD-122. PMID 18336199 is too old to be relevant.
I did what I could to complete the story with the best refs I could find (which were not great) in these diffs.
I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted. I won't moan either way, but this is not a slam-dunk "keep" by any means. It is borderline at best. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I modified my !vote above. North America1000 23:37, 23 February 2017 (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.