User:Draeco/Desk

bpt • desk • cites • philo • interiot • new AfD • SPATRA • WP:POLLS • WP:MEDCAB • WP:RFA • WP:RD/S, /L

WikiProject Medicine

Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

Projects[edit]

Start WP:DERM:REF citations from [1] as bojilov45@gmail.com
Suture and various techniques
dopamine
portal triad and the lobular model and acinar model of liver organization.

Translate[edit]

WP:SPATRAs and requests at Category:Articles needing translation from Spanish Wikipedia

Articles[edit]

I have particular pride/obsession/masochistic tendencies with several pages including:

Wisterias including American, Kentucky, and Chinese
Burkesville, KY and the Dale Hollow Reservoir
Filártiga v. Peña-Irala case
Zapatista general Genovevo de la O
UK's Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce and founder James Kennedy Patterson
List of breakdance moves including the 6-step, Swipe, Windmill, Flare, 1990, Suicide, Float, Spin, Freeze, Drop, Kick, and their common Template:Breakdance
ICRC and officials Jakob Kellenberger, Angelo Gnaedinger, and Pierre Kraehenbuehl
French and Stubs gauges and chart
Ko Pha Ngan and Haad Rin with its Full Moon Party.
University of Kentucky College of Medicine
Horserace (drinking game), hors de combat, cerci, and cornicle

Medicine[edit]

Nano-ayurvedic medicine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM: No different than, and not independent from, Ayurvedic medicine. Slapping 'nano' in front of it doesn't make it any less quantum woo. What's next, relativistic water memory? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete and WP:SALT. There simply isn't sufficient WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and it will need to be salt-ed, because POV-pushers keep trying to recreate it, without improving it, against consensus. See also the discussion at WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Saw this at FTN, and I agree it's a WP:NEOLOGISM with pretty clear WP:MEDRS issues in terms of satisfying anything close to notability, nor does this seem like a useful redirect in that context. Given the recreation going on, a salt does seem warranted. Ayurvedic medicine already exists, so if anything ever was going to take hold with this term, content could be developed there and WP:SPLIT out on the off chance there was a notable topic at hand. I wouldn't condone that right now with what I'm seeing right now, but the option means there's no strong argument against salting. KoA (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete I just removed two statements from the article that radically misrepresented the cited sources, but overall I think the article is hopeless. I only looked at the two sources I removed, but neither used the term "nano-Ayurvedic medicine" or even mentioned Ayurveda, and neither dealt with direct clinical trials of any "nano-Ayurvedic" drug. Not a good look, especially since WP:MEDRS would presumably apply to this topic. I would not oppose a salt. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Current Molecular Pharmacology and Journal of Integrative Medicine are not RS. — hako9 (talk) 02:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Alphonse Crespo[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This subject fails WP:GNG and all other notability metrics. Clear promotion and cruft (primary sources, Amazon...) JFHJr (㊟) 01:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC Traumnovelle (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politics, Medicine, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: PROMO, sources that I find are social media or profile pages. Long way from GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Joshua Michael McConkey[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an as yet unelected political candidate, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. As always, candidates do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se -- the notability test at NPOL is winning the election and thereby holding office, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons independently of their candidacy, or (b) show credible reasons why their candidacy is a special case of much greater significance than most other people's candidacies, in some way that would pass the ten year test. But this demonstrates neither of those things, and is referenced 50 per cent to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and 50 per cent to a tiny blip of coverage in the context of him tangentially winning a tidy but not massive sum of money in the lottery, which is not in and of itself a reason why his candidacy would be special.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the seat, but nothing here is grounds for an article to already exist now. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and North Carolina. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete per Bearcat. I came across this article previously and would have nominated it for deletion but did not then have time to do a proper before. JSFarman (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Medicine, Nebraska, Ohio, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete completely non-notable former congressional candidate. I was about to nominate for deletion when I saw it was already nominated. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

KEEP: additional categories and notoriety, WP:AUTHOR award-winning published author WP:ACTOR credited actor 57.140.28.16 (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Comment He does not meet the inclusion criteria as either an actor or a writer. He has two (very) minor acting credits (as "Westlake Party-Goer" in Buck Alamo, and an uncredited role as "Launch Room Control Operator" in Transformers: Dark of the Moon). The Independent Press Award is not credible; it is sponsored by an organization (or person) that charges $125 to enter a book in any of 150 categories and sells book reviews. JSFarman (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Writers are not automatically notable just for winning just any award that exists — the award itself has to pass notability criteria as an award before it can make its winners notable for winning it, which means the reference for the award win has to be media coverage treating the award win as news, not the award's own self-published website about itself. And actors are not automatically notable just because acting roles have been had — a person gets over notability criteria as an actor by having reliable source coverage about their acting roles shown in media, not just by having an IMDB profile. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:NAUTHOR, and has coverage well below what is needed to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2024[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With all due respect to the page creator, I think it's evident by now that it's past the time for the "Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic" series to end. Case numbers from Malaysia and New Zealand every few days, two arbitrary case counts from other countries, a couple thresholds and anniversaries, and links to WHO situation reports, do not a notable or encyclopedic topic make. All of the "countries and territories" with no infections have zero permanent population anyway. This topic doesn't meet WP:NOTDATABASE or WP:NLIST; there is not enough worldwide noteworthy content out there to justify the existence of such a timeline nowadays, as opposed to the early pandemic.

Due to the decline of testing, case numbers are not accurate anymore anyway. "The actual number of cases is likely to be much higher than the number of confirmed cases – this is due to limited testing." - Our World in Data. Experts from WHO and elsewhere asked by Time are uncertain it even is a pandemic anymore, with some outright saying it is not; there will never be an official cutoff for an exact end date of the pandemic since WHO does not officially classify pandemics (also noted in Time and elsewhere). And because COVID-19 is expected to circulate indefinitely and become an endemic respiratory virus, this series must end at some point even though case numbers continue to be reported (as they are for seasonal flu, which we don't track on Wikipedia). I believe that time is here, as evidenced by what the series has shrunk into. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, Medicine, and Lists. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2023 and rename to Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic since 2023. Agree with nom, week-by-week case numbers in individual countries are simply not what should be included in a global article like this. I want to give props to the editors here, but great folks have also been keeping Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Malaysia medical cases chart and Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/New Zealand medical cases chart updated for COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia and COVID-19 pandemic in New Zealand so putting this data in prose form is not necessary. I then recommend trimming the target article and previous monthly articles of routine country-specific data updates and only including significant news (which does not include random singers and athletes contracting it). Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't "Timeline of COVID-19 since 2023" be more useful, since as noted, whether or not it is actually still "pandemic" is now disputed by experts (and likely to become an even less favored viewpoint in the future)? I still think we can just delete it and end the series, but I thought I'd raise this. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:04, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Agree with the nom; this isn't as important as it once was. We know have moved on, the world is open again, and Covid is more of an annoyance than a pandemic... We need to stop this series of yearly/monthly articles at some point and 2024 seems to be a logical place to stop. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Delete Not so notable for now. Orientls (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Having worked on that page as well as the New Zealand and Malaysian pages, I agree that it will probably be best for me to stop working on the global timeline page. I am glad someone raised this topic since I need someone to tell me when to stop. Will accept any decision taken by the Wikipedia community. Andykatib 08:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect per Reywas92. It's not impossible that there will be COVID events this year suitable for a timeline, but the weekly updates from Malaysia and New Zealand are not that. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Redirect can be fine too. Orientls (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Delete There may be a place for discussing still-ongoing DUE issues related to the pandemic (probably on the endemic article or something similar), but it's too SYNTHy to call it 'COVID-19 pandemic since x' because that implies a pandemic is occurring, which requires compliance with WP:BURDEN to state. So it's best to delete for now. 'Timeline of COVID-19 since x' is better and we can keep that in mind depending on how sources comment on the subject. SmolBrane (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

DXN (brand)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Upon a meticulous review of the DXN (brand) article, I propose it be considered for deletion for several compelling reasons:

Firstly, the article is excessively reliant on primary sources, including the company's own website, press releases, and internal documentation. This overdependence raises substantial concerns regarding the neutrality and verifiability of the information presented. Wikipedia's guidelines underscore the necessity of secondary sources to furnish an objective and thorough examination of the subject matter.

Secondly, the article is deficient in adequate third-party reliable sources that could independently corroborate the company's claims and establish its notability. For an article to adhere to Wikipedia's notability standards, it must be underpinned by significant coverage from reputable, independent sources. The present article fails to satisfy this criterion, thus undermining its credibility.

Moreover, the content of the article exhibits a promotional tone. DXN operates as a direct selling company, also recognised as multi-level marketing (MLM), which frequently prompts concerns about the legitimacy and ethical practices of such business models. The promotional nature of the article is likely to mislead readers into perceiving it as an endorsement rather than an impartial encyclopaedic entry. Wikipedia's neutrality policy dictates that articles should not function as advertisements or endorsements. LearnologyX (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, and Malaysia. Skynxnex (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete. Most of the sources cited are controlled by the company itself. Of the rest, Direct Selling News is a trade publication; DXN's mere presence on their list could be cited in an article, but doesn't establish notability. The only significant coverage here is from the Sri Lankan Daily News; that article is archived here. I have concerns that this is undisclosed paid news, like is common in Indian media. It certainly reads like a press release rather than independent reporting. For non-cited sources, quite a few about the company's products' purported health benefits are excluded by WP:MEDRS. Something like this Elsevier publication (p. 642) is a good start, but even I don't think this rises to significant coverage, and it seems I tend more liberal than consensus on that regard. I do not know enough about accessing Malaysian media to know if we're missing quality sources there. Lubal (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Creditability of Daily Express is in question when it is open to feature Video, Story on their website from the volunteers. There are two articles (1 & 2) published in the Daily Express that read more like press releases than news coverage. LearnologyX (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I hadn't mentioned the cited Daily Express source because I didn't think it did anything to establish notability, but I'm pretty sure it's just a repackaged press release anyway. Lubal (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Advertising, India, and Europe. LearnologyX (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Comment: The revision history for the article DXN (brand) demonstrates multiple significant issues that warrant its deletion. The article has been subject to numerous actions due to copyright violations, as indicated by the changes made to hide revisions under RD1 (Violations of copyright policy) on 11:21, 9 April 2021; 01:15, 8 April 2021; 00:08, 23 September 2020; and 14:16, 26 January 2020. Furthermore, the page was temporarily protected on 16:34, 27 November 2018, due to persistent sock puppetry, necessitating restrictions on editing to autoconfirmed or confirmed users. These recurring issues underscore significant non-compliance with Wikipedia's content policies, including verifiability, reliable sourcing, and adherence to copyright law. Given the repeated infractions and the need for administrative intervention, deletion of the article is justified to uphold the quality and integrity of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, an attempt to clean up criticism was made in the past, which can be another sign of advertising and an effort to maintain a good reputation for the brand, which was removed from the article. LearnologyX (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Muhammad Saleem[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails general notability guideline and notability guidelines for people. likely autobiographical. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. ltb d l (talk) 06:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. The BLP currently relies on unreliable sources. Created by a SPA so likely COI. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Delete fails WP:GNG. Good find. 86.130.244.141 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Patrick Gatonga[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another questionable African business executive resume masquerading as an article. There is only one possible RS in this piece for to establish notability, a profile in the Standard, and many editors may consider it to be disqualified as an interview. All other sources, here and in BEFORE search, are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:PRESSRELEASES or other primary sources. Not enough significant coverage in secondary, independent, reliable sources to clear notability thresholds. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Skynxnex (talk) 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Rising Medical Solutions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent reliable coverage to meet GNG /NCORP BoraVoro (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Dozy Mmobuosi Foundation[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting GNG; Promo; delete or redirect to Dozy Mmobuosi or BoraVoro (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, Business, Education, Medicine, Technology, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Dozy Mmobuosi: Almost repeated content from the founder. I fund no reason why it shouldn't be redirected. There is an atom of notability per the allegations about the foundation not the founder that is keepable; though I have see almost all of them in the main founder article. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 23:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Omid Mehrpour[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The current sources do not provide the required coverage about the subject, as they are either passing mentions, profiles, or not reliable. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iran. GSS ^💬 10:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Keep: This subject deserves a Wikipedia Page as per WP:Academics. It fulfills The criteria for academic personals.
Shortcuts
- WP:NACADEMIC
- WP:NECONOMIST

As per the criteria, a subject is considered notable if it fulfills one of the listed criteria. In this case the subject fulfills 1 or more of the WP:Academics criteria as following.

Criteria 1a: Highly Cited publications

•The subject is among top 2% of highly cited scientists according to the Stanford/Elsevier database. 1

•The subject has also high citation metrics on Google scholar. 2 Here below is the list of some scholars with equal status having Wikipedia page and lesser citations on google scholar than this subject for comparison:

1. Ahmad Reza Djali, his Google Scholar Metrics 3

2. Saba Valadkhan, her google scholar Metrics 4

3. Neda Alijani, his google scholar Metrics 5

Criteria 1d: The subject has served as editorial board member of known scientific journals. 6 7 8 9 10

Criteria 1e. The subject had been selected in competitive fellowships 11 12

Criteria 2: The subject has been awarded academic awards. 13

As per the criteria for academic peoples, the subject is notable enough for having separate Wikipedia page. Joidfybvc (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 10:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hey man im josh (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: I'm not sure the academic awards are notable; his publication records seems ok. Just passing academic notability. Lots of fluff now in the article, but we can edit that. Oaktree b (talk) 13:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Keep: An article that weakly meets WP:SIGCOV. I am also certain of meeting WP:NAUTHOR from researches and publications. I'm considering this for a second chance though. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Vibratome[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was apparently created by a now-blocked paid editor working for a company in the industry. The content is partly how-to and partly promotional and partly trivia. Perhaps it's best to drop it entirely or trim most of it and merge anything worth keeping into Microtome#Vibrating? -- Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, my mistake; it was created by User:Davidswanepoel; the blocked User:M66JX did not start editing it until October 2023. Some spammy content was added by User:Neurolady27, who also attempted to create Precisionary Instruments. This was the company that apparently paid M66JX, so now I'm wondering if this was actually a second paid editor or account? -- Beland (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete: This is an important tool in histology and pathology laboratories, but most of the sources are about technique, not the machine itself. If kept, the "In media" section has to go, 100% SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
My initial impression is that vibrating microtome is sufficiently notable that it should have an article. I don't think the article should be named after one company's trademark. I would say, weak keep and rename vibrating microtome, but I don't object to merging into Microtome#Vibrating or WP:TNT and starting afresh at Vibrating microtome. Mgp28 (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a possible Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The press coverage received lacked depth or significance, failing to meet the WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk | contribs) 14:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 15:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cavarrone 19:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I don't still get what you call PR. Though it may seem, but can't we check WP:BEFORE or any other way. This dawn.com author is a reporter per the articles written for the reliable news source. There is this from GBooks. In a search on news, I got many pop ups.here. All these are resourceful ways of checking the credibility of an article particularly to this one that focuses on Cancer(pharmaceutical) perhaps or whatever. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- SafariScribe, But it's mostly either trivial mentions or ROTM coverage. But GNG requires significant/in-depth coverage, which I haven't been able to find so far. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)