Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine

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

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Medicine. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary, it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Medicine|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Medicine.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch

See also: Health and fitness-related deletions and Disability-related deletions


Medicine[edit]

Food issue[edit]

Food issue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I PROD'd this article a couple days ago. Today, Hyacinth turned it into a redirect to eating disorder. I considered that option when I PROD'd it but ultimately I think the term "food issue" is way too broad to be an appropriate redirect to any one thing, and too nebulous to serve as an appropriate disambiguation page. ♠PMC(talk) 01:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"The food issue" is a common term in discussion of food supply. "A food issue" is a common term in discussion of eating disorders. Just because you haven't come across a term doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I think a lot of things, but I try to make assertions when I want things to happen or not happen. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I did a search and found it essentially in use as a descriptor, not a technical term - in the same way you might refer to a "heart issue" or a "gasoline issue". It just means there's a problem with something. We don't make disambiguation pages for every possible combination of two words that might refer to something we do have an article about. ♠PMC(talk) 02:12, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Is this a keep !vote, or are you just trying to make snide comments about the nominator?Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Delete per nom. No dictionaries that I've checked have listings for "food issue" (can't access the OED at the moment, which would be worthwhile to check). The phrase isn't even used at Eating disorder which is where it was trying to dab or redirect to. A quick google search for "food issue" is mostly returning magazines that have special food issues, and not any sort of technical term. As a dab page, it's not structured correctly (lots of (vague) links per entry, listed as a stub, etc). Barring any evidence that this is indeed a technical term that's in use (and not just a fairly generic use of English), this shouldn't even be a redirect, due to the vagueness and the other possibilities, as mentioned above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:38, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Vipulroy Rathod[edit]

Vipulroy Rathod (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Promotional article created by his daughter. Barring an advertorial in TOI, there is very little reliable sourcing here.

The daughter has also created an article for herself at Natashja Rathore and her sister, Rytasha Rathore which also need to be scrutinised.

Smita Bharti is another article she created which looks borderline notable. —Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG; it might be worth deleting the others as well Spiderone 13:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Kenneth Sokolski[edit]

Kenneth Sokolski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article had a loooong WP:SYN section on secretin for autism (spoiler: it doesn't work, but the section described it as revolutionary and amazing anyway). Even that had no reliable independent sources actually about Sokolski. I can't trace anything, either. Only directory entries. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:01, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete no where near meeting notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Green Our Vaccines[edit]

Green Our Vaccines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

A single rally is not worth having an article on unless something particularly notable happened at or because of the rally, which does not appear to be the case here Tornado chaser (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Clark Memorial Hospital[edit]

Clark Memorial Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The article has no sources and it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. MeowSTC (Meow back) 09:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Bemarituzumab[edit]

Bemarituzumab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The antibody is still in investigation phase. Too early for an entry in Wikipedia. Not verified whether the drug has been approved for human use. PubMed has no information related to the topic. Hitro talk 07:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, especially if "As of 2010, about 50% of drug candidates either fail during the Phase III trial or are rejected by the national regulatory agency" (from Phases of clinical research#Phase III) is still correct. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep experimental drugs are considered to be notable at phase II. This drug is in phase III trials. Natureium (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless Natureium can point to a guideline verifying that phase III drugs are intrinsically notable. The only ref in the article is for the assignment of a nonpropriety name by the WHO. That's about as WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION as it gets. SpinningSpark 22:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I can't find where I've read this in the past, so I'll hold off on using that as a reason until I can do a deeper search. I'm actually pretty tired of trying to keep track of all the things that are considered notable regardless of RS for no reason other than that at some point someone decided that they are notable. (tiny villages, trains stations, small legislative districts, extinct species, roads, etc.) Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. I couldn't find any mention in PubMed, which is a red flag. However there are press releases available so I added one (Business Wire) to the article. I also added a short description from the National Cancer Institute. I looked for a specific drugs notability guideline in Wikipedia, at WP:N, WP:SNG and WP:PHARM, but we don't seem to have one. In particular, I could find no mention of Phase II or III drugs being inherently notable. I am reluctant to delete because I think that bemarituzumab is likely to become notable in the next couple of years. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the drug does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline standard. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Axl: We could userfy it, if you want to curate it. SpinningSpark 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Designer baby[edit]

Designer baby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This is page about something theoretical -- "a human embryo which has been genetically modified -- which treats it as an entirely real thing. It is hopeless from the foundations up. I took what was useful here and merged it into Assisted reproductive technology in this series of diffs, along with content from Germinal choice technology, Reprogenetics, and New eugenics, all of which covered this same science fiction territory from different angles. The page was restored in this diff, with its interesting edit note. In any case, this page and topic should not stand alone in WP, and certainly not in its current form. The topic is covered solidly in the merged-to location in the ART page. If the content there is expanded with well-sourced content it can be split out at some point. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete It appears you did a great job of merging this into the other article. WestWorld42018 (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
The mitochondria topic is covered at Mitochondrial replacement therapy which has nothing to do with designing babies. As I mentioned the sci fi stuff ("proposing applications...for enchancement") is covered in the merge target. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead sentence of the article states: "A designer baby is a human embryo which has been genetically modified, usually following guidelines set by the parent or scientist, to produce desirable traits." This is precisely what "mitochondrial replacement" (actually nuclear replacement in an egg containing healthy mitochondria) does. StN (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is clearly a notable subject from the many reference provided in the article. It is also separate from Assisted reproductive technology since this relates to technology to assisting achieving pregnancy, and not in genetic modification of the baby per se. All of the other titles simply redirect to Assisted reproductive technology. That this is often talked about in terms of future applications doesn't matter - what matters is that it has received "significant coverage". FOARP (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
It is incompetently covered here as though it were real and in addition there are bad sources and no sources (essay writing/OR) for significant stretches; the content is sourced well and tightly written at the target page. There is no need for this page. Finally ART is ART and the same techniques would be used for this (if it ever starts happening) as are used and researched there. This too would be "assisted reproduction".Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Page quality issues aren't a deletion issue. Whether it is real or not doesn't matter - what matters is if it has received significant coverage, and it very obviously has (1 2 3) ART is a technique for assisting achieving pregnancy so it is clearly not the appropriate place for discussing the subject of genetically engineered babies (including babies potentially having genetic modifications having nothing to do with genetic diseases) in general. FOARP (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The topic is covered much better elsewhere. Yes ART is currently, actually used to help people who can't conceive; the concept of "designer babies" is discussed where it belongs there as some possible future application of current and under-research techniques, which is the appropriate context for it. Context matters in an encyclopedia. The theoretical ethical matters (which are all that the popular media refs you brought are good for) are discussed in the other page. I won't reply to you further. Jytdog (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Refusing to engage in debate isn't conducive to an AfD, which is about achieving consensus through discussion. It is not clear, at all, why the subject of designer babies (which, as you say, is in large part a potential future phenomenon, one widely discussed and given significant coverage) is best covered within a narrow article about a single current technique for assisting childbirth. Furthermore what you are really asking for here is a merge/redirect - so why is this being handled via AfD and not via the talk page? Finally, the subject of moving the content appears to have been discussed on the article talk page and closed with no consensus in 2009, so why did you simply merge the page without discussing it first on the talk page to see if it was possible to achieve a new consensus for moving? FOARP (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Debate is fine but this is clutter. You are not making valid arguments nor dealing with the reality of this trashy page and you have completely misrepresented the target page. Deletion debate is not about making invalid claims and I won't use my time "countering" claims not based in reality. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Since you are now responding, I hope you won't mind if I respond in turn. The subject of the target page is described in the header: "Assisted reproductive technology (ART) is the technology used to achieve pregnancy in procedures such as fertility medication, in vitro fertilization and surrogacy" (my emphasis). It is clear from this that ART is a technology (a specific technology) used to achieve pregnancy. The topic of Designer Babies is completely different - it is, as you have said, in large part a future phenomenon, not necessarily linked to any specific technology. Editing ART to cover the topic of designer babies does not make sense as they are separate topics - designer babies are created not just to facilitate pregnancy but for other reasons. The moral concerns around designer babies are not related to facilitating pregnancy, but instead theoretically possible future event such as the selection of e.g., hair-colour or skin-colour. Mergin makes no sense in that circumstance.
BTW - Refusing to even engage with the arguments against deletion is not conducive to the conduct of an AfD, because AfD is about reaching consensus and that can only be achieved through discussion. Especially where an article has existed for a long time and has already passed through a deletion discussion there will always be arguments against deletion that should be addressed by the proposer. Your proposed grounds for deletion include things that are not relevant to an AfD (i.e., whether designer babies are purely theoretical or not, whether or not they are a future phenomenon, whether or not the editor who restored the page after you wiped it did so correctly), these things don't matter for AfD because, per WP:RUBBISH, AfD is not for clean-up, page-quality, or other surmountable problems. The only place where I see you having a point is that there may be duplication, but if there is duplication it is hard to see how it can be duplication with ART since ART is a very different topic based on a simple comparison of the opening paragraphs of each topic. FOARP (talk) 13:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete I had to write a paper on this topic and I severely doubt I am the last one who will have to. This article helped briefly sum up what exactly "designer babies" are in a non-biased format. The other article contained information that was unrelated to my topic, and so I found it very confusing and finding the information I needed was hard. Please do not delete this, as it was very helpful to me and I'm sure that it will be helpful to others as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talkcontribs) 01:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC) 2601:100:817f:d7f7:2970:6012:617a:19ed (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The useful content is at the redirect. My goodness what an odd keep rationale. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree that this may be just a WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL argument, but the real question here is whether you were right to copy that material over to Assisted reproductive technology and whether it really belongs there. I don't think it does, since ART is a specific current technology used for assisting pregnancy, which is very different to the subject of design babies, which are in large part a future phenomenon that doesn't necessarily involve the technology discussed in ART and may be done for purposes other than assisting pregnancy. FOARP (talk) 14:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Early Check research study[edit]

Early Check research study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · HighBeam · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This is a local pilot project of newborn screening (one of many ongoing in the world at any given time). Sourcing is primarily to project announcements which were run in local media. I believe such pilot studies hardly ever cross WP:N. Here, I propose to merge and redirect to newborn screening. — kashmīrī TALK 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • delete this was created in good faith through AfC and really should not have been passed. Refs are mainly directories, press releases, and the like; this is essentially an advertisement for the trial. We do have articles on clinical trials, but only after they are done and they have some clear enduring importance as shown in reliable sources -- for example STAR*D or Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. We can't know if this trial will be important until after it is done. We should not merge it anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This one likely won't be important, at least in its part related to spinal muscular atrophy, as last July the disorder was added to the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel[1]. Over the next months, newborn screening towards SMA is expected to be incorporated into screening panels of each individual state, including N Carolina, so this study will have to be terminated (unless N Carolina decides otherwise). — kashmīrī TALK 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • keep My intention in posting the article was to clarify how this study differs from regular newborn screening, as families may turn to Wikipedia for the facts when deciding whether to enroll in the study. It only launched recently, so most of the references thus far are to news articles and the press release, but I also referenced the NIH project information which speaks to the notability of the study (see “public health relevance statement”)[1]. I also referenced a scientific journal article written by the investigators that substantiates the need for a second tier of newborn screening to develop an evidence base for conditions nominated for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panels (RUSP)[2]. Although a research study, Early Check is the first example of such a system implemented in the United States. Even though SMA has been added to the RUSP, it’s still up to individual states to undertake the process of adopting SMA to their panel, funding the start-up costs, and implementing the testing[3]. This means that the actual implementation of SMA could be years from full implementation. Hopefully the study will provide further justification for SMA, as well as “establish an infrastructure for testing other candidate conditions,”[2] including fragile X, which has not yet been added to the RUSP. Is Wikipedia the right resource for individuals seeking clarity about current state or national research studies? I think it has the potential to be so long as the study information is available publicly. —

References

-- Amj16 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Hi Amj16, Per WP:MEDRS, a study considered for inclusion in an encyclopaedia would have to be referenced in multiple reliable sources independent from the study; a few press releases and an entry on the NIH website are not sufficient in the light of the Wikipedia notability criteria.
Also, I am not sure this will be the best place to educate people how a clinical trial varies from regular medical intervention; we have a dedicated article Clinical trial for this.
In my view, Wikipedia is not there to inform about each and every clinical trial – the trial's website and/or Clinicaltrials.gov are the right venues for that, per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Actually, it will even be in the potential participants' best interest to be referred first to the trial website when searching the internet for a given study – especially that at this stage, any Wikipedia article on Early Check can only summarise the information from its website, possibly introducing errors. Hence my nom. — kashmīrī TALK 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Note, person who moved this out of AfC has been blocked as one of many, many socks of sockmaster per SPI. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2018 (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]