Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The wubbot (talk | contribs) at 18:13, 12 September 2008 (Archiving closed debates). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Points of interest related to Medicine on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Stubs – Assessment – To-do |
Deletion Sorting Project |
---|
|
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:
- 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 as 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.
- 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.
Purge page cache | watch |
Medicine
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lord lee-benner
- Lord lee-benner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This article appears to be a resume. A search on google news reveals 0 hits for this person; prod removed by creator, who added more sources by the subject, but none about him. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not an encyclopedia article. JuJube (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since he "has written four medical school text books that have been used by medical schools" but the article is in absurd shape. Gut it and stub it. JJL (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep as he exists and appears to be notable in his field. His publications are verifiable (he DOES have a listing with the Library of Congress) but the article is in dreadful shape and borderline vamispamicruftiful. Eddie.willers (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 04:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unverifiable. JFW | T@lk 05:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His "book for the general lay public" is held in only 4 libraries, according to WorldCat, and is essentially self-published by his own foundation. His claimed medical textbooks seem to be held by no library whatsoever, judging by WorldCat & LC & National Library of Medicine. (if they were real, and could be shown to be widely used, then he would be notable, but there is zero evidence for even the bare existence.) The only paper listed in pub med is a 1 or 2 page letter in a journal. A possible G11 speedy as promotional. DGG (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, the claim on his books appears to be rather exaggerated [1]. But he seems to be a notable physician and meets WP:PROF which I consider applicable [2]. JJL (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response That link is to his own web site. Have you found any independent confirmation- not on his own web site- for his notability? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's certainly considerable puffery on his web site and some things may be misrepresented; e.g., "Vitamin E Deficiency in Alzheimer’s: A Risk Factor for Increased Lipid Peroxidation? "Neurology Jan, 1988; 38: 169-170 appears to be just a letter [3] and the same is true of "SDAT: Prevention May Be Possible." AGE, Vol. 11, 168, 1988 [4]. Despite that it still looks like it meets WP:PROF to me, assuming it's true he's a fellow of the ACE [5], etc. That's he's exaggerating his resume and counting his own newsletter as publications doesn't change the fact that he's modestly well-known. JJL (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response That link is to his own web site. Have you found any independent confirmation- not on his own web site- for his notability? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment yes, the claim on his books appears to be rather exaggerated [1]. But he seems to be a notable physician and meets WP:PROF which I consider applicable [2]. JJL (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. BJTalk 19:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Acland Hospital
- Acland Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hospitals are no different from organizations they must pass WP:CORP. Nothing I can find anywhere gives this hospital notability. It can not be called notable because of those it was founded in memory of because notability is not inherited. (Although a mention in that persons bio may be appropriate. Being sold also does not create notability....I mean you have to be kidding! benjicharlton (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Delete AS per my nomination... benjicharlton (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep reviewed my discussion based on the new information added to the article
- Delete A hospital can be notable, but no evidence this one is. No inherent notability just because it is a hospital. Edison (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — A little research reveals that the building is designed by the leading Victorian architect Sir Thomas Graham Jackson and the notable patients include John Betjeman and C. S. Lewis. I have added this information with multiple references and believe this passes as a notable building as well as former nursing home and hospital. — 13:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If a pizzaria serves someone famous, they dont become notable. This is a run of the mill nursing home, and NN RogueNinjatalk 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually its not even "run of the mill"...it's closed.....benjicharlton (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, no in-depth coverage of the hospital anywhere, only mentions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it is non-notable and despite being designed by someone famous and having famous former patients notability is not inherited. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. Clearly not notable as a hospital. (Changed vote below.) Not convincingly notable as Acland Hospital building. A list of works by the architect belongs in and is in the article on the architect. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looking at google books, there seems to be an entry on it on p. 6 of The Encyclopedia of Oxford, ed. Christopher Hibbert, London: Macmillan 1988, ISBN 033339917X (snippet only, so I don't know what it says). Mention in Pevsner (given in the article) also strongly suggests notability. As to famous people having stayed there (more candidates in Google books), the comparison with visits to a pizzeria is not appropriate (a serious biography will say what hospital its subject stayed at, not every restaurant they ate at). N p holmes (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Notable (1) a building by a notable architect (2) a nursing home that operated for 125 years. Even though it is now defunct, the article is worth keeping for its historic content. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable building, notable architect, notable history, sourced. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to sufficient rationale provided by Bduke (talk · contribs) and Peterkingiron (talk · contribs), it was relatively simple to find independent secondary sources which give significant discussion of the subject of this article. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? I hope you don't mind me asking. Brilliantine (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses" - in Bristol Times And Mirror, April 19, 1897.
- Canada Free Press, November 16, 2004.
- Some additional book sources "Sarah Acland Home for Nurses", "Acland Hospital", "Acland Nursing Home", "Acland Home", hospital
- The fact that there is an entry in The Encyclopedia of Oxford is also compelling.
- There is enough info there in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources to establish notability, not to mention also enough to get this article up to WP:GA status. Cirt (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oxford Encyclopedia entry I would say is not at all compelling. It has thousands and thousands of entries for what is essentially a pretty small city. Pretty much every street would be notable by that standard. I am still looking at the other sources, as Google Books is being very slow today. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, sounds good, keep us posted. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is unimportant now, I hope, since Cirt has updated the article, but Brilliantine's description of The Oxford Encyclopaedia is at odds with what the review in The Oxford Review of Education 16 (1990), 126 says "The Encyclopaedia comprises some 1000 entries" (accessible via JSTOR). Since these are on institutions, places and people as well as buildings, it ought not to be surprising that Oxford has more than a thousand notable subjects. N p holmes (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The Oxford Encyclopedia entry I would say is not at all compelling. It has thousands and thousands of entries for what is essentially a pretty small city. Pretty much every street would be notable by that standard. I am still looking at the other sources, as Google Books is being very slow today. Brilliantine (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources? I hope you don't mind me asking. Brilliantine (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Please see changes made to the article incorporating further information from an additional (16) WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 05:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. (Changed vote.) Improved article shows clear notability. Good work Cirt! ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Ningauble (talk · contribs), most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well done Cirt, thank you for all your interesting research. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, thanks, it was a fun little expansion project. It was most interesting in the course of research to learn that George V of the United Kingdom officially opened the new buildings of the facility on May 12, 1879. Cirt (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, well done Cirt, thank you for all your interesting research. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Eluchil404 06:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alberto S. Gallerani
- Alberto S. Gallerani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
I can only find one source for this person, "Business Update; Makeover corporation delivers on site medical services at Florida facility" that lists some of his qualifications. I do not know whether that is enough. Are there more sources out there, or should this article be deleted? Commander Keane (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep There are some sources at the Excite search engine. Some of the sources are primary sources, and some of them are secondary. From a inclusionist point of view, he appears to meet the guidelines just by a hair. From a deletionist point of view, he's not done anything significant. I'm going with weak keep for now, but my instincts tell me to remain neutral on this one. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 11:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless sources can be found that establish his notability above other plastic surgeons operating on celebrities. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced, overly advert-like, obvious COI (see article history) and presents no actual notability. The "medici star breast lift" gets all of 2 Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with this position unless proper references can be found, as stated above. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dog_health#Heart_disease. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The QUEST study
- The QUEST study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Article about a somewhat generically named clinical trial recently (Sep 08) published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. It is already quoted in Pimobendan and the reported results are reflected in press clippings, but that doesn't mean that the study itself is notable as being itself the subject of independent coverage and already had a lasting impact . Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To address specifically the points you raise:
- The study is the largest undertaken in the history of veterinary cardiology. I respectfully suggest that in terms of impact, this study will have a profound and extremely long-lasting effect on the way heart disease is treated in dogs.
- Heart disease affects 1 in 10 dogs, and with a US dog population of 68 million (USA today, Sept 6th, 2002), that means that this information is going to be relevant to a lot of people.
- On the issue of notability, the topic is sufficiently noteworthy to have achieved coverage in at least one quality national paper in the UK - The Daily Telegraph. [6]
- In regard to the comment on the naming of the study, QUEST stands for "QUality of life and Extension of Survival Time" according to the publication.
Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Let me just clarify that
- (i) you may opr may not be right about it's possible long term impact, but it seems to be too early to be sure;
- (ii) I sympathize with the plight of the dogs and their owners, but surely hope they get good advice elsewhere
- (iii) clinical trials are part of the life cycle of a drug as are confirming or contradicting studies as well as meta studies, official approbations and later controversies; in fact the aptly named Telegraph article "New drug to treat dogs with heart disease" mostly demonstrates that mainstream media are beginning to take notice of the drug and it is not a question that we can have an article on the drug itslef.
- (iv) The full title still applies somewhat generally to the scope of many medications and other studies have the same name which apart from making searching for refs more difficult, is indeed not really relevant here.
- In short, there need to be very good reasons to have a separate article on a clinical trial, and I don't think this is the case here. But there will now be five days for other wikipedians to weigh in.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tikiwont (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Dog_health#Heart_disease. I'd also support a new article on Cardiology (veterinary) or Cardiology (dogs). This study is not notable enough to justify its own article. There isn't enough information to reach even a B-class article. It's just too small of a topic. However, Wikipedia should certainly mention this study, in the context of a larger topic area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Completely lacks context; reader is much better served with a good article on MMVD and its treatments than one short article about one trial comparing some of its treatments. JFW | T@lk 20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the feedback. I have made a small edit to the Dog_health#Heart_disease entry, which I hope is in the spirit of the feedback.Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Well the study can be mentioned where relevant, as usual pending editorial consent. Given that this is done by the article's creator I don't think that amounts to a merge with the need to keep the edit history, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge. Keeper ǀ 76 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories
- Earth Metabolic Design Laboratories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Declined speedy deletion, but I'm not convinced this group passes notability. Three Google scholar hits don't seem to quite do it. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This organization played a key role in the DEA scheduling hearings for MDMA. They were the actual organization that requested the hearings. The organization conducted the first real human study of MDMA and the first chronic animal toxicity study. The notability of the founders and their subsequent activity is also considerable. For example: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ec5hNgYWHtkC&pg=RA1-PA38&lpg=RA1-PA38&dq=deborah+harlow+mdma&source=web&ots=BrJ02b1taf&sig=mIoEdASvmjOoBgJuBlHfjBXlOYA&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result
The organization has fewer references than it should because most of its activity is incorrectly atributed to MAPS, which didn't exist until years later.--TheRealRealFester (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Rick Doblin. This article is very short, as is that one. The two articles are interrelated enough that combining would allow a way for the article to naturally grow more than it would as two separate ones. —C.Fred (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr.Z-man 20:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Maximally a merge candidate. JFW | T@lk 19:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, seems to meet the general notability guideline. Merging with Rick Doblin's article is also a fine option. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.