Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin

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 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.
  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]

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet)[edit]

Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (Daet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reliant entirely on primary sources. No evidence of notability * Pppery * it has begun... 01:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no good hits on GSearch, GNews and GBooks. GNews Archives gave an article about the family of doctors who founded the hospital from a small clinic. However, I'm not sure that that is enough to warrant notability. --Lenticel (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single visit dentistry[edit]

Single visit dentistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term exists, but most uses of it seem to be promotional, many tied to the mentioned CEREC company. Unsure if this term alone meets WP:GNG and especially a need for independent sourcing. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Medicine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tellingly, there is no source provided for the article's claim that "traditionally these procedures take upwards of two appointments," as it proceeds with marketing claims of CEREC supporting the creation of multiple dental restorations through rapid 3-D scans. As noted by Sammi Brie, virtually every online use of the term appears on a dentistry practice advertising that their office has the CEREC equipment, reinforcing a lack of notability. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 08:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loren Galler-Rabinowitz[edit]

Loren Galler-Rabinowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE. As for the rest, I don’t know whether she meets the criteria for notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Beauty pageants, Medicine, Women and Massachusetts. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, very weak. The sports hall of fame induction seems to be the best, the Buffalo newspaper article is fine. Coming in fourth, then third at the national championships for ice dancing is barely at notability, but we have enough confirmation of these. The medical career is routine, but just barely notable for the athletic portion. Oaktree b (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This helps too [1]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oaktree, passes BASIC. Another source to add is Forward. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Neural Network Society[edit]

International Neural Network Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally a redirect to Neural Networks (journal). Article created in its original form by obvious COI editor Internationalneuralnetworksociety, which was reverted to a redirect. Very similar article then created by Hailneum, whose only other contribution is twice-failed AFC submission Draft:International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN).

Sources cited in the article are either:

  • primary: 1, 4, 5
  • passing mentions: all else

Other coverage of the organisation I was able to locate includes a few passing mentions in newspapers at the time of its founding; and a handful of passing mentions in an "oral history", which is mostly transcripts of interviews with people involved with the organisation.

In short, despite the existence of Stephen Grossberg and the journal, there does not seem sufficient inherent notability to meet either GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see the organisation having recieved signficant coverage, or at least signifcant enough to meet NORG, hence I would have to agree with the nominator. Golem08 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Specialty Hospital, Jordan[edit]

Specialty Hospital, Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted and salted at Specialty Hospital. The only sources here are press releases, the hospital's self-written description, and some kind of advertorial. I can't find much online for this case. Cleo Cooper (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paulin Basinga[edit]

Paulin Basinga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears PROMO. I don't see articles about this individual, only interviews or use of him as an expert on xyz health topic in various media. Odd that all sourcing here is from Nigeria, but none in the home country, possible "pay to publish" as we see typically in Nigerian media. I have my concerns, bringing ti AfD to discuss. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose!
In the beginning, I read about him and his works. For clarification, it may seem to be promo but factually it is not.
In facts, connectively, I read that in the home country he was a university lecturer, researcher and consultant. These can be limits to his articles other than interviews or use of him as an expert. But I considered it notable because he featured on international articles including those of World Bank and BMGF. It is referenced that later on, he has featured on other institutions such as Global Citizen and UGHE.
I do not see any problem with sources from Nigeria because based on reliable sources, it shows that his work in leadership role at BMGF were about Africa and the biggest office there was in Nigeria.
However, If we test him in Rwanda, below are some articles about him but there are in Kinyarwanda;
Thanks. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oaktree b, a drive-by comment: are you insinuating that "pay-to-publish" determines the nature of Nigeria media. I can't see much coverage if not two from Nigerian source. Don't you think it's below the belt?
    Back to deletion discussion! — Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure, we see it all too often here in AfD; Nigerian and Indian media seem to have a history of publishing iffy articles on people with no relation to the country. When I see an article that's only sourced to Nigerian media when the subject doesn't have a connection to the country (or a partial connection), it's a red flag. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never knew the story about Nigerian and Indian media, and I think we should not easily globalize because from this subject, mathematically, the sources from Nigerian media are less than 30%. 6eeWikiUser (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is sufficient coverage, and it does not matter which country's media covers it (or the language) as long as the refs ares reliable and verifiable, and there is sufficient coverage that meets our notability guidelines, and merits a stand-alone article, which this article does. Generalising and casting aspersions on a developing country's media is most unhelpful, and is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and its goal in fighting against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. We do not know whether subject paid for it or not, and without facts, we should be mindful of casting aspersions on the credibility of others. It it is most unhelpful, and I hope the nom strike out that comment in their nomination and the response to Safari Scribe. I totally agree with Safari Scribe. It is unwarranted and below the belt.Tamsier (talk)

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton[edit]

Keller Rinaudo Cliffton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has many issues for a BLP and feels like a WP:SPIP. The article already has a resume-like alert and the puffery alert (which is dated from 2021).

I would also argue that on the notability of this subject. This person's notability is not inherented to them by association with their company. The company is notable and has high quality representation in Wikipedia.

There are also a number of details that are not cited in this article and our major issue for BLP. Many of the citations also do not match facts in the source (example: cite in personal life). One source is just "Department of Construction Management & Civil Engineering" without any sort of information to detail whether this source is a publication, a website, etc.

Ew3234 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shauna Vollmer King[edit]

Shauna Vollmer King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a writer and organizational founder, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither writers nor founders of organizations are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about their work -- but this is referenced entirely to glancing namechecks of her existence as a provider of soundbite in articles about other things or people, which is not what it takes: we're not looking for sources in which she speaks about someone or something else, we're looking for sources that are about her.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to show much, much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This person is notable. Upon seeing a few sources like The Denver Post, one of the major news publishers. You can see a full detailed paragraph is covered.

"Shauna King, president of International Medical Relief, said about 20 people will go on this mission, including doctors, nurses, medical students, a disaster and refugee trained psychologist and Kelly. Several more have applied, King said, such as oral surgeons and other medical providers.

International Medical Relief dispatched a crew to Lesvos over a month ago to organize lodgings, a clinic station, transportation and line up interpreters.

Roughly 1,500 refugees arrive in Lesvos on overloaded boats on a daily basis, King said, and most are there temporarily."Larvatiled (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

King is referenced in a single paragraph of a much longer local human-interest story (here's the link; actually published in the weekly local Broomfield Enterprise, a sub-brand of the Post but not the Post itself) focused on a local resident going on an International Medical Relief trip. All it says about King is that she is president of IMF; it quotes her speaking to other topics but contains no additional details that would help us know why she is notable. It is by definition a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and thus not appropriate to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't become notable on the basis of sources in which they're speaking or writing about other things, they become notable on the basis of sources in which they're the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. That is, not sources which quote her statement on a mission: sources in which other people are talking about her. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. I found more information on her uncle (a Catholic priest) than on her in my search. If I cut the middle name I get social media profiles and information on an unrelated Shauna King. -- asilvering (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballmer Peak[edit]

Ballmer Peak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - the article is a 3 sentence stub about a joke from an xkcd comic, with two of the three sources used being from xkcd itself and the xkcd wiki. Doing a google search, it appears that there's little else about the topic besides the Observer article, outside of blog posts and other self-published sources. — Chevvin 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Distillery using this name, nothing for the web comic/meme thing that this article is about. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a section in Xkcd due to being notable enough for one source. Not notable enough for an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Xkcd article for reasons stated above: that multiple sources are used suggests the topic is notable enough for inclusion. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to Strong Keep after the previously made points. As said before, the sources meet the notability guidelines but the topic would be difficult to smoothly integrate into the Xkcd article. RyanAl6 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballmer Peak is not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Normally redirects should be mentioned at the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Ballmer Peak is a humorous and intentionally incorrect claim contradicting the Alcohol-related brain damage page. It makes no sense as a redirect to there. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – There's nothing here, just a single study and report that uses the term. Should not be merged into xkcd either, that article already struggles with the many things that grew out of xkcd over the years. (The Observer article technically doesn't even really mention the webcomic btw). This topic probably doesn't meet medical inclusion criteria; it's quite serious to tell people (based on just a single study) that drinking alcohol can make you productive. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep
This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study. Way over our inclusion guideline. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Hobit: That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet WP:MEDRS... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related. The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea. And we prove notability by sources. But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:MEDRES isn't relevant because this is not a medical article. Per the lead sentence: "The Ballmer Peak is a humorous concept..." Dan Bloch (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then why are we citing scientific studies? The Observer article seems to be presenting fairly direct advice: drinking alcohol can in fact increase your productivity. I recognize that this is humorous, but to me that makes it a scarier vector for misinformation. "We wouldn't have an article on this if it wasn't funny" would be a really bad sign. For the record, however, I don't quite know and also want to defer to someone with more experience in that field. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: leaning delete. I don't think there's any argument that the above sources qualify this for GNG through SIRS. Let's stick to our scope and leave this to urban dictionary and the like. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Draken Bowser: Could you clarify how they don't meet SIRS? The books are are fairly short (a paragraph) but define the term with a bit of history so may well be significant. The other parts are clearly met as far as I can see. The news articles meet all 3. The research papers could be argued to be primary I guess, but "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event". They are close to *an* event (their research) but are secondary in this context. Basically asking for you to document why you think GNG isn't met when we have 7 sources listed. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I consider it insufficient. Unless ctrl+f fails me it's not mentioned in all of the sources, and included in one merely as an efn. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The bar is "multiple". It is mentioned in all but one. And that one is referenced by 2 of the others as being about this topic. Two of the sources are solely on the topic (with the name). Two (the papers) cover the notion in detail but only one references it by name. The three books all discuss it by name. Hobit (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question – If merged into xkcd, what would the addition looks like. Would it be included in the "Academic research" section and say something like "A hypoethsized phenomenon linking alcohol consumption and productivity is named after an xkcd joke, the "Ballmer Peak""? Would such an addition be appropriate? ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see lots of opinions but no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surgery[edit]

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]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine

Leave a Reply