Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine - Biblioteka.sk

Upozornenie: Prezeranie týchto stránok je určené len pre návštevníkov nad 18 rokov!
Zásady ochrany osobných údajov.
Používaním tohto webu súhlasíte s uchovávaním cookies, ktoré slúžia na poskytovanie služieb, nastavenie reklám a analýzu návštevnosti. OK, súhlasím

Odborná literatúra, audioknihy, eknihy:


Kategórie (12):


















© Beletria.sk

Panta Rhei Doprava Zadarmo
...
...


A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine
 ...
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:
  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.
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 other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Medicine. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
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

Parul Institute of Medical Science and Research

Parul Institute of Medical Science and Research (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 enough to have a seperate article, the institute became a constituent college of Parul University after it's formation, see this and this. Should be part of the university's article, maybe under constituent colleges section. It's also unclear whether the college's name is still the same, I have seen it mentioned somewhere as "Faculty of Medical Science and Reaserch - Parul University", I'm unable to find the college in any UGC / MCC lists so couldn't check. Anyways, It doesn't have any offline notability, too, it's just on paperwork like degrees, otherwise only "Parul University" is being used. CptViraj (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Joshua N. Haldeman

Joshua N. Haldeman (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)

Article has issues with neutrality (seems angled toward showing that the person is less anti-Semitic than sources suggest), is fluffed with unnecessary information, and it seems this person is not sufficiently notable, with the main thing being Elon Musk's grandfather. Calling neurocalometers "a then-controversial expensive device" also seems skewed. Foxsake92 (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Keep as creator. Welcome to Wikipedia! It's very unusual for a user's first edits to be an AFD, but that's totally okay!! Do you have suggestions for how we could improve the neutrality? In response to your concerns, neurocalometer sentence has been reworded with attribution rather than wikivoice. As far as Notability goes, Haldeman was famous in his own time for his roles in chiropractic and politics, not because of his descendants -- Notablity is not inherited and the article text never actually mentions Haldeman's grandson, whose life didn't really overlap much with Haldeman's. Feoffer (talk) 02:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
And the other language versions also cite in-depth coverage from CBC News and Business Insider5. There are also: 6789. Foxsake92, do you think this meets the criteria at either at Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (WP:GNG) or Wikipedia:Notability (people) (WP:BIO)? "issues with neutrality" can be handled at the article and its talk page. Rjjiii (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The first was written by the subject himself and the second by his son; they're not independent. – Joe (talk) 09:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

California School of Podiatric Medicineedit

California School of Podiatric Medicine (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)

This fails WP: N. I put a PROD that expired, but apparently this was nominated in 2008. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Ramil Hashimliedit

Ramil Hashimli (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)

Sevda Jafarovaedit

Sevda Jafarova (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)

Dennis Manganoedit

Dennis Mangano (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)

Draftify moved unilaterally to main space when unready. I think the subject might potentially have some notability, but the article is not written to show it, nor referenced to show it. Flagged as failing WP:GNG after arriving in mainspace by the editor who moved it to mainspace. Being charitable, this feels as if the move were in some manner accidental. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply

The Vets (company)edit

AfDs for this article:
The Vets (company) (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The sources are just either announcements (e.g. on securing funding) or republishing of their press releases/self-bio. Same for the content of the article,. Creator is indeffed for COI promotional creation. North8000 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete per above Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotiaedit

Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia (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)

Another referral from WP:BLPN. This article is a product of original research and synthesis. As titled, this concept or topic is not a phenomenon covered as such within multiple reliable sources. This is an agglomeration of scandals of merely topical relation (to a non-notable topic). As an additional consideration, the WP:BLP-applicable contents have been and stand to remain consistently problematic. A list article would stand a better chance, but most of the scandals covered here are not independently notable. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Canada. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • How are scandals that involve serious breaches of public trust on multiple occasions (e.g. Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, multiple privacy breaches) and 6-7 figure lawsuit payouts not notable? One of the bullying scandals even led the victim to making a TEDx talk about workplace bullying:
https://www.ted.com/talks/gabrielle_horne_how_a_doctor_used_medical_research_tools_to_survive_workplace_bullying?language=en
If the title needs to be changed, that's one thing. Or making it a "list article", whatever that means. But I don't agree that the scandals are not independently notable. And they are related - several of them raise that there are systemic issues that recur, for example:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/dalhousie-medical-school-mistreatment-harassment-bullying-1.6712113
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/medical-resident-mistreatment-study-dalhousie-1.7058488
And others as referenced. Feel free to read the original news articles in detail, if I perhaps did not summarize them well, but I definitely see them pointing to systemic issues repeatedly - the articles themselves, not me as doing "original research and synthesis".
As a new editor on Wikipedia, getting excited about making an article about all the medical scandals in our province and the toxic workplace issues that we all hear about the medical system all the time, and being shut down quite harshly repeatedly instead of welcomed and kindly shown how to refine things, I am so demoralized that I'm frankly just done with editing. No point if this is what this community is like.
MrHaligonian (talk) 02:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Delete Hello MrHaligonian, and welcome. You, me and everyone else are compelled by the rules of the project. Some of these scandals may be notable in and of themselves, but creating an article listing them all under a common banner is a form of synthesis called original research, which is disallowed. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    and per Fram. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Keep because we have an editor willing to Split it into two My knee-jerk reaction is that this is probably notable enough to keep. Now to read with care... Okay, the main complaint is OR, right? The first two sources cited look RS at first blush, but they do not actually state the information they're cited to support. The source has to say the thing! Continuing... Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC) Okay, I did a source sampler on the article talk page. I propose that we Refocus the article to "Medical professional scandals at Dalhousie University": 1) The article's sources are mostly RS, but I did not see any that said "We're talking about the specific concept of medical professional scandals in Nova Scotia." The claims made in the lede that NS has a pervasive culture of harassment need to be backed up by sources that say exactly that or almost exactly that, and the sources just don't say that. 2) A big chunk of the article focuses on scandals that happened at Dalhousie University specifically and almost all of the statements made by sources do support what happened there. A few explore why in good detail. The case can be made for notability. I say we snip off that section at the bottom about the health service and repurpose these editors' hard work as a DU article. I didn't go into as much depth on the sources covering the Health Authority, but if the sources are of the same quality, then we could WP:CONTENTSPLIT the article in two. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you so much for taking the time to read the sources and come up with a creative idea that allows my hard work to be kept. I agree with you that it's mostly Dalhousie University problems, because as far as I can tell, everything that happened at Nova Scotia Health Authority also happened at Dalhousie University as all were employed as trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) at Dalhousie, or they were doing research there. The only part that has nothing to do with Dalhousie is the part about repeated privacy breaches, as the news media only says it was healthcare professionals looking at hundreds of records that they weren't authorized to, and the lawsuit had NSHA pay out $1 million with a new lawsuit & allegations of negligence as of last month. I would be good with having the majority of the sources moved into a Dalhousie University article by someone who knows how to write this better/quote the sources better (maybe you, Darkfrog24) and I don't know what to do with the NSHA-only parts.
For the record, I originally had another section on private practice scandals that someone felt violates BLP so it was removed. That further pigeonholes this article into being mostly about Dalhousie and less about the whole of Nova Scotia. MrHaligonian (talk) 12:30, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
as far as I can tell,
There's your kicker. It's not about what you can tell or what I can tell. It's about what professionally published sources can tell. The article has sources that say "medical scandals are a specific thing in Dalhousie" and "medical scandals are a specific thing in the Health Authority," but it's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH to add that together as yourself-the-Wikieditor and say "therefore they're a thing in Nova Scotia." Even if you are a professional investigator of this specific issue IRL, you have to wait for a pro to publish. That's true throughout project Wiki: Chemists aren't allowed to write chemistry articles without sources even though they're experts. Historians aren't allowed to write history articles without sources even though they're experts. We all need sources, and those sources have to say the thing that the article says or strongly implies.
My first article got deleted too. I've since gone on to make many more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
The kind of source you'd need for "Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia" would be something like a newspaper article analyzing multiple scandals and talking about what it is about Nova Scotia specifically that made them happen or made them happen the way they did. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah I see, thank you. It is possible such an article exists and I just haven't found it yet. I did find, in another search, 4 more articles about serious scandals in Nova Scotia Health Authority. So this would provide more material for an NSHA article if we were to proceed with splitting a Dalhousie University medical scandals article off from an NSHA article:
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/nova-scotia-medical-mistakes-registry-085610510.html
https://globalnews.ca/news/10318288/pictou-landing-first-nation-accuse-radiologists-secret-tests/
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/ambulance-service-emc-ehs-health-emergency-1.7131333
https://globalnews.ca/news/9396989/allison-holthoff-er-death-cumberland-regional-health-centre-ns/
I think the entirety of my article up to, and NOT including, my last paragraph about privacy breaches, can be transitioned to a DU-specific article, since everyone in the paragraphs above the NSHA privacy breaches were training or doing research at DU and DU is therefore significantly involved even if NSHA ended up being the one getting sued. For example, the Dr. Horne case involved her doing research at DU and older colleagues demanded to receive undue credit on her research, which is very much a DU culture problem, but NSHA suspended her privileges so it was NSHA that got sued. The fact of toxic culture issues at DU remain in that case though, along with all the other cases where DU was involved. I am actually now starting to realize that the toxic culture issues are primarily a DU problem, and NSHA problems are of a different nature entirely, more along the lines of disregard for privacy and medical mistakes, rather than being a "toxic workplace" issue. My goal with this article was to primarily comment on toxic workplace issues because that's what we constantly hear about from medical professionals in this province.
So I'm thinking to split the articles into 2:
1. Dalhousie University Medical Scandals (or some such name to refer to the toxic workplace issues that repeatedly recur) and
2. Nova Scotia Health Authority Scandals (referring to the privacy/medical errors type of issues) MrHaligonian (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
As this relates to article deletion, I think we can all take this as evidence that there is a Wikieditor willing to do the legwork. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I've edited the article accordingly to prep it for a potential content split. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Split into two I don't know if I can vote on my own article, but of course I vote to keep it. If it helps, I understand the opening sentences were seen as "synthesis", so I took the feedback from Darkfrog24 that the sources have to specifically say the thing, and I reworded the opening to specifically say the thing. Also noting Dalhousie University is the largest university in the Maritimes (covering 3 provinces - NB, PEI, NS) and that would add to the notability. It's also one of the oldest universities in Canada, though I didn't add that because I am not sure if that makes any difference. MrHaligonian (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I also wonder how to make it a "list article", so that it's basically a summarized list of all the scandals, instead of "original research" and "synthesis". I don't know what the criteria are for making it a list. As it stands now, with the opening sentences revised, I feel like this is just a list of scandals at Dalhousie, and a list of scandals at the provincial health authority, and both of those fall under the realm of "Nova Scotia". If it's considered "synthesis" to combine them in 1 then I understand the content split argument, though the 2 articles separated would be basically stubs, and also there is considerable overlap between the two as it's not possible for someone to be a medical trainee at Dalhousie without also being a Nova Scotia Health Authority employee, and most NSHA employees involved in the scandals were also training or doing research at Dalhousie. But the privacy breach scandals with a $1million class action lawsuit payout and a new class action lawsuit pending seem to have no link to Dalhousie. This is why I think it's good to have them both together under 1 article, but if it is "synthesis" to identify that Dalhousie and NSHA together fall under the umbrella of Nova Scotia, then I guess splitting is the only option... MrHaligonian (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
A list article requires discrete events to list that have articles (are independently notable by themselves). They generally stand in the same WP:CATEGORY in some way. It substitutes for a genre-type article where no source (presently) supports one. What we have here is an article that's knitting together topics from apparently one or more discrete categories without the IRL support for tying them together. Completely unsarcastically, MrHaligonian would be a great journalist, and I bet local publishers would publish a synthesis like this. It's okay for them to do that, just not us. It takes three or more willing publishers though, so perhaps save this article's raw code locally and bring this to media attention if you care about the issue. FYI I usually ravage BLP related articles especially, either before or during AfD, but I didn't here in case you wanted to sandbox or WP:DRAFT this. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation and the compliment. We did end up removing the BLP-related private practice one and I haven't brought it back in. The scandals listed in the article now are less about living people and more about the institutions. The living people are just being quoted/mentioned, very similar to the source material and not synthesizing them. If you're going to ravage this at some point, please compare with the original articles and be gentle. The point I was trying to get across was what the institutional/cultural problems are, not biographing living people. There is a lot more to say about Dr. Gabrielle Horne per information about her online, but I'm not biographing her and just included the news article information about how DU/NSHA did her dirty. MrHaligonian (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I'll wait for this AFD to take its course before considering offering a scalpel or cleaver. Thank you for your efforts in addressing the BLP concerns. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
You're totally allowed to vote. You're what we call the "first major contributor" to the article. That means you get to set a few precedents for the article going forward, but other than that it's not treated as yours per se. (So you get to vote and aren't treated as inherently biased just for having made said contribution.) I like to think of it as as soon as I hit "publish changes," I've given the content to the Wiki as a present. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Thank you for explaining, and I responded to your helpful explanation about synthesis above. MrHaligonian (talk) 23:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Your vote is allowed, welcomed, and reasoned (which is important, thank you!). You can also change it if you want, or add a "Strong" or "Weak" if you're feeling so. Decisions here are ultimately by WP:CONSENSUS, so generally comments and votes here get considered according to what you say and not who you are. Deletion is a drastic question but we aren't drastic about it I hope. JFHJr (㊟) 04:09, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus. The closing options in AFD are limited to Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. This can't be closed with an order to Split this article as editing is voluntary and a closer can't order an editing task to occur. So, if this article is to be Split, you first have to vote to Keep it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  • Keep or Redirect Based on the above discussion, I suggest we keep this with a plan to split into two: Dalhousie University having their own page on their medical scandals, and redirect the NSHA-specific redirect pages to Nova Scotia Health Authority by copy & pasting the small section on NSHA scandals into a new small section on scandals at the bottom of that existing Nova Scotia Health Authority article. Alternatively, if it's not felt that Dalhousie University Medical Scandals should be its own page, then the same can be done with the DU scandal material by copy & pasting that section into the bottom of the Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine article as a new scandals section - which may work out better if JFHJr will continue with the threat to take a "scalpel or cleaver" to the material and thus shorten it significantly. Note that if removing BLP-related content, please try to maintain as much of the scandal-related material as possible, even if removing names of the people involved. The only hitch on this is that the Dalhousie Dentistry scandal, while technically falling under the umbrella of a "medical" scandal, is its own faculty separate from the Faculty of Medicine (it's the Faculty of Dentistry) so if all of that is being redirected to Dalhousie University Faculty of Medicine then some rewording would be necessary to point out how the Faculty of Dentistry scandal is closely related but from a separate faculty that appears to not have their own Wiki page. --MrHaligonian (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    Heads up, you've made it look like you voted twice. That's not that big of a deal since both statements are signed, but this paragraph belongs in the thread with your original post, right under J's comment about not being drastic. This way, people reading the thread quickly won't mistake you for two people. (Feel free to remove this statement of mine when you move this post.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • The reason I voted again is because this was relisted because of no consensus. My original vote was skewed toward "split into two" and that is apparently not an option. Your vote was also "split into two" and I think they're saying that they want something that is either Keep, Delete, Redirect, Merge or No consensus. I get the sense that we should both remove our original votes and put a firm, allowed vote here below the relist? I removed my original "keep" and just left the incorrect "split into two" for the arguments there, but my final vote is Keep or Redirect with the material being split. MrHaligonian (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)reply
MrHaligonian, you can't "vote" more than once. Please strike the vote you no longer have or another editor might strike out one of the votes on your behalf. It's better that you choose which one. Liz Read! Talk! 06:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
See where I went back and changed the bold text of my vote? Do that. You can make a crossout by writing "strike" in format like this: <strike>Split into two</strike> Keep. It's okay that it's located above the relist notice. People know to look for it there. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Carl Faingoldedit

Carl Faingold (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)

I've cleaned this article up a bit but after looking for additional information to add more substance, I don't think this meets WP:GNG. He's certainly had his name attached to many published papers, but they are pretty niche in content and many co-authors don't have their own pages. Looking at the page history, it appears that this may have been initially authored by a student or someone associated with him. Most recently, an IP user copy/pasted a numbered list of his papers but started at "112" which makes me think it came from somewhere else, but I can't find where. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Lindsey40186 (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Keep per WP:NPROF#1. On GS I see at least 12 publications in GS with 100+ citations which is generally beyond the bar required to clear #1. Scopus lists him at an h-index of 44 with 10 publications with 100+ citations and Scopus is generally more conservative than GS. So based on this it seems like a pretty clear cut case for NPROF#1. --hroest 10:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    That's a pretty gross misreading of WP: NPROF. It says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Nowhere does it say that h-index, citation count, or publication count is a factor for establishing notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    To be fair, it also doesn't say that they are not factors. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work – either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here. Differences in typical citation and publication rates and in publication conventions between different academic disciplines should be taken into account." Qflib (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    I guess I also look at the bio side of it as well. It's great if someone is a highly cited writer, but if we don't have any reliable sources to form even a very basic biography (age, education, work history) then is it worth what would ostensibly be a list of journals they've contributed to? (and even in that case, we can't necessarily be sure to what extent they contributed). Lindsey40186 (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    This metric is arbitrary and self-serving. If this person has 12 publications with 100+ citations and is notable, what if they only had 11? Are they still notable? What if they had 12 publications that had exactly 99 citations? Are they suddenly no longer notable? What if there are lots of self-citations? This is why reliable sourcing matters. Citation counts alone are deeply unpersuasive. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
    Additionally, if the subject's citation counts are sky high, then finding reliable sourcing shouldn't be a issue. Someone would have written a reliable piece about their discoveries. The fact that several people haven't found reliable sources is evidence that the subject hasn't achieved the impact that WP:NPROF demands. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Delete: Author of quite a few books and peer-reviewed studies, but I don't find critical review of his books, nor any indication of the academic notability needed here. Oaktree b (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Delete: Fails WP: N. I can't find any sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Lybrateedit

AfDs for this article:
Lybrate (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)

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Surgeryedit

Proposed deletionsedit

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 Reviewedit

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.


Navigácia: Veda >

Analytika
Antropológia
Aplikované vedy
Bibliometria
Dejiny vedy
Encyklopédie
Filozofia vedy
Forenzné vedy
Humanitné vedy
Knižničná veda
Kryogenika
Kryptológia
Kulturológia
Literárna veda
Medzidisciplinárne oblasti
Metódy kvantitatívnej analýzy
Metavedy
Metodika
Metodológia vedy
Náboženstvo a veda
Náučná literatúra
Podvody vo vede
Popularizácia vedy
Potravinárstvo
Prírodné vedy
Pseudoveda
Scientometria
Spoločenské vedy
Teórie
Teatrológia
Technické vedy
Technika
Terminológia
Umenie
Výskum
Veda
Veda a technika podľa štátu
Veda a technika podľa kontinentu
Veda a technika podľa roka
Veda v kozme
Vedci
Vedecká literatúra
Vedecké databázy
Vedecké experimenty
Vedecké konferencie
Vedecké metódy
Vedecké ocenenia
Vedecké organizácie
Vedecké parky
Vedeckí spisovatelia
Vzdelávanie
Záhady

Príbuzné výrazy:



Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok.
Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

Your browser doesn’t support the object tag.

www.astronomia.sk | www.biologia.sk | www.botanika.sk | www.dejiny.sk | www.economy.sk | www.elektrotechnika.sk | www.estetika.sk | www.farmakologia.sk | www.filozofia.sk | Fyzika | www.futurologia.sk | www.genetika.sk | www.chemia.sk | www.lingvistika.sk | www.politologia.sk | www.psychologia.sk | www.sexuologia.sk | www.sociologia.sk | www.veda.sk I www.zoologia.sk