Biosthmors (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
added Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting using HotCat |
||
Line 39:
*[[User:Biosthmors/Projects|Projects]]
*[[User:Biosthmors/Talks|Talks]]
[[Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting|User]]
|
Latest revision as of 16:03, 25 March 2014
- My editing philosophy
Welcome to my Wikipedia user page. My real name isn't "Biosthmors", which is just a rearrangment of the letters in the word thrombosis. I edit Wikipedia and you can too. I don't think it is difficult. I think we should focus most of our efforts on improving existing articles, instead of starting new ones. I want every Wikipedia article to follow our neutral point of view policy, especially the articles that I think raise the most important issues of our time. Access to factual, unbiased information is essential for forming an engaged public. Thankfully, on Wikipedia engaging in any sort of advocacy, slant, or spin is forbidden. If you have any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to contact me or by email.[but email works only if you're logged in, and setting up an account is easy]
If you want check my edits to see if I am slanting any article towards any point of view, I'll explain some of my beliefs: I see money in politics as the big issue of our time. I wonder why the word socioeconomic exists but politicoeconomic is not in our vocabulary. I happen to like this video, which gives a global/U.K. view, and this video, which gives a U.S. perspective. My view on the Wikipedia–Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) dynamic as I see it is described here. According to Bernie Sanders, the 300 richest own as much as the poorest 3,000,000,000.[1] I don't see the wisdom in this. So I wonder if Wikipedia might—if it were as good as it could be—make the world a more just place?
As for other groups of people around the world, I think all the faces here are attractive (well except for one). As for other sentient beings, I think dolphins and whales should have human rights (unless you're an Inuit hunting with pre-Industrial Revolution tools). Why do I bother mentioning all of this? Because I want you to know that I see editing Wikipedia as one method we might take more responsibility for the world around us—and as an effect, improve social and environmental health.
- My views on the owner of the domain
My other Wikipedia–WMF views are as follows: I am strongly pro-paid editing and strongly anti-advocacy/pro-neutrality. I want the WMF to keep metrics on editor retention of experienced editors. The WMF Board of Trustees has three community representatives, but I think they—SJ, Phoebe, and Raystorm—might represent a wmf:chapter perspective that is orthogonal to the community interest. I don't think that the chapters as a whole should be considered a part of the community. Some chapters are paid bureaucracies, and I'm not sure they add any reasonable value (especially in terms of dollars spent) for readers. In other words, I think that the way we select board seats could be influenced by probably hundreds and hundreds of votes from people who think they have something to gain, like money or travel. (I've received funds for travel from the WMF and I've been very thankful for it. I've tried to give back to the community to prove that this was a good investment of resources.) This is similar to what Sue said.
I care about this politicoeconomical influence because I think it limits the options available for effective governance of the WMF. Wikipedia is in a crisis. It has previously fallen on Alexa page rankings from #5 to #8. We need good governance, oversight, and effective investment of community resources to end the crisis. We should try to be the the world's #1 internet destination. Also, I wish the WMF would publish metrics similar to what Alexa uses, like bounce rate, daily page views per visitor, and daily time on site. What are the historical trends on those numbers?
Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit—not the encyclopedia you can abuse to force anyone to edit. Therefore, I feel that the WMF should never influence instructors to force students to edit other than inside Wikipedia sandboxes. Unskilled, uninformed, and untrained students being forced by ignorant instructors to edit Wikipedia articles is one of the worst things about the education program. In my opinion, this forced editing results from the WMF using a bad metric: quantity. However, a quantity-focused approach is not how the English Wikipedia developed—nor is it what the community wants—so pursuing this strategy to build the encyclopedia in English or any other language seems very ill-advised.
- My potential conflicts of interest
- I have an interest in Vanguard and in the performance of VTSMX and VGTSX with an eye towards increasing shareholder value (and dividend payments) for corporations in those indecies, which might involve the reduction of executive pay
- Groups I appreciate include the Sunlight Foundation, Transparency International, and Amnesty International; if these groups have their way, they might reduce some level of shareholder value (please note the apparent contradiction with the first bullet point)
- I have a potential conflict of interest with the topic Suburban Express, but not a real one, because all I want is for the wise application of NPOV and RS to win out
- I want the Democratic party to win the Senate seat in the 2014 Georgia election because I still think what Saxby Chambliss did to Max Cleland was despicable
- I support abolishing the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration because I see drug abuse, not drug use, as a social and medical problem—not a criminal problem. The U.S. government should not outlaw anyone's personal freedom as they do currently. Why should they?[2] I support the Portuguese model. I find the viewpoint of some U.S. "conservatives", those who believe that they know what God wants politicians and the government to do, to be highly flawed. I feel that that religiopolitical ideology might be best classified as a disease.
- "Reported" bug/feature requests
- To report bug/feature requests
- References
- ^ Original here; archived here.
- ^ Griffiths R, Richards W, Johnson M, McCann U, Jesse R (2008). "Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later". J Psychopharmacol. 22 (6): 621–32. doi:10.1177/0269881108094300. PMC 3050654. PMID 18593735.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
![]() |
---|
8 June 2024 |
Things going on with WikiProject Medicine articles
Did you know
- 09 Jun 2024 – Walter W. White (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by B3251 (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jun 2024 – Esther Tailfeathers (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Valereee (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jun 2024 – List of individual body parts (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Gobonobo (t · c); see discussion
- 28 May 2024 – Paul Parkman (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Thriley (t · c); see discussion
- 19 May 2024 – Guardian Cap (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Soulbust (t · c); see discussion
- 09 May 2024 – Adnan al-Bursh (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Makeandtoss (t · c); see discussion
- 07 May 2024 – Laura Veale (talk · · hist) was nominated for DYK by Storye book (t · c); see discussion
Articles for deletion
- 12 Jun 2024 – Lybrate (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Lordofhunter (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
- 09 Jun 2024 – Vaidam Health (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Pppery (t · c); see discussion (6 participants)
- 09 Jun 2024 – HeartMath Institute (talk · · hist) was AfDed by BD2412 (t · c); see discussion (7 participants)
- 09 Jun 2024 – Non-violent abortion protests (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Rhododendrites (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
- 03 Jun 2024 – K. S. Narayan Reddy (talk · · hist) was AfDed by Daask (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
- 03 Jun 2024 – Nano-ayurvedic medicine (talk · · hist) AfDed by Headbomb (t · c) was closed as delete by Favonian (t · c) on 10 Jun 2024; see discussion (8 participants)
- 02 Jun 2024 – Alphonse Crespo (talk · · hist) AfDed by JFHJr (t · c) was closed as delete by Elli (t · c) on 09 Jun 2024; see discussion (6 participants)
- 31 May 2024 – Timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2024 (talk · · hist) AfDed by Crossroads (t · c) was closed as redirect by Liz (t · c) on 07 Jun 2024; see discussion (8 participants)
- 31 May 2024 – DXN (brand) (talk · · hist) AfDed by LearnologyX (t · c) was closed as delete by Star Mississippi (t · c) on 08 Jun 2024; see discussion (3 participants)
- 31 May 2024 – Muhammad Saleem (talk · · hist) AfDed by Ltbdl (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 07 Jun 2024; see discussion (4 participants)
- (5 more...)
Proposed deletions
- 12 Jun 2024 – Institute of Health Sciences (Ireland) (talk · · hist) was PRODed by Guliolopez (t · c): Non-notable organisation. Fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. There are insufficient sources to support the basic facts (establishment, disestablishment, etc) - not to mind establishing notability of the org. The "references" given in the article ... and endorsed by SeoR (t · c) on 12 Jun 2024: Per nom on all counts, incl. ancient CoI given the username. Absolutely no evidence of notability; a quick source check now does not provide anything solid to work with.
- 10 Jun 2024 – Best Bones Forever (talk · · hist) was PRODed by Emmybris (t · c): Cannot find evidence showing that the campaign still exists; I find it may not meet the notability threshold anyway.
Categories for discussion
- 30 May 2024 – Category:People on the autism spectrum (talk · · hist) was CfDed by MikutoH (t · c); see discussion
Redirects for discussion
- 13 Jun 2024 – Conjunctival pallor (talk · · hist) →Anemia was RfDed by Neuropol (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jun 2024 – Xi variant (talk · · hist) →SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant was RfDed by 48JCL (t · c); see discussion
- 06 Jun 2024 – Under the influence of alcohol (talk · · hist) →Alcohol intoxication was RfDed by Mondtaler (t · c); see discussion
- 31 May 2024 – Nu variant (talk · · hist) →SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant RfDed by 48JCL (t · c) was closed; see discussion
Featured article candidates
- 17 May 2024 – John Rolph (talk · · hist) was FA nominated by Z1720 (t · c); see discussion
Good article nominees
- 09 Jun 2024 – Walter W. White (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by B3251 (t · c); start
- 05 Jun 2024 – Biological determinism (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Chiswick Chap (t · c); start
- 24 Apr 2024 – Exhaustion disorder (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Draken Bowser (t · c); start
- 16 Apr 2024 – Alexander Langmuir (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by BluePenguin18 (t · c); see discussion
- 28 Mar 2024 – Adrenal crisis (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (t · c); see discussion
- 22 Mar 2024 – Hepatic hydrothorax (talk · · hist) was GA nominated by Aeschylus (t · c); see discussion
Featured article reviews
Requests for comments
- 02 Jun 2024 – Circumcision (talk · · hist) has an RfC by Prcc27 (t · c); see discussion
Requested moves
- 13 Jun 2024 – Idiopathic ulnar neuropathy at the elbow (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Ulnar neuropathy at the elbow by Asukite (t · c); see discussion
- 12 Jun 2024 – Mary Fletcher (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Mary Fletcher (philanthropist) by SafariScribe (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jun 2024 – Sexual and gender-based violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Sexual violence in the 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel by TRCRF22 (t · c); see discussion
- 20 May 2024 – TOPS System (talk · · hist) is requested to be moved to Total posterior spine system by Alpha3031 (t · c); see discussion
Articles to be merged
- 07 Jun 2024 – Microneedles (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Microneedle drug delivery by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jun 2024 – Hematochezia (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to blood in stool by Tobiasi0 (t · c); see discussion
- 05 Jun 2024 – Precision cut lung slices (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Precision cut tissue slices by Beland (t · c); see discussion
- 31 May 2024 – Stomach reduction surgery (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Bariatric surgery by Boghog (t · c); see discussion
- 29 May 2024 – Human Chimerism (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Human chimera by Jlwoodwa (t · c); see discussion
- 29 May 2024 – Drugs and sexual performance (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Sex and drugs by 1233 (t · c); see discussion
- 25 May 2024 – The International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to International Agency for the Prevention of Blindness by Samoasambia (t · c); see discussion
- 18 May 2024 – Olivopontocerebellar atrophy (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Multiple system atrophy by Fayenatic london (t · c); see discussion
- 07 May 2024 – Asperger syndrome (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Autism spectrum by COArSe D1RTxxx (t · c); see discussion
- 28 Apr 2024 – Respiratory quotient (talk · · hist) is proposed for merging to Respiratory exchange ratio by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
- (24 more...)
Articles to be split
- 22 Apr 2024 – State health agency (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by GobsPint (t · c); see discussion
- 20 Apr 2024 – Health department (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by GobsPint (t · c); see discussion
- 28 Mar 2024 – United Network for Organ Sharing (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by 45.26.61.142 (t · c); see discussion
- 03 Jan 2024 – Anisakis (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion
- 17 Nov 2023 – Mycoplasma (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion
- 27 May 2023 – Health advocacy (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Felix QW (t · c); see discussion
- 31 Mar 2023 – Range of motion (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Urbourbo (t · c); see discussion
- 02 Oct 2022 – Soft diet (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by AngusWOOF (t · c); see discussion
- 04 Jan 2022 – Arthur Neve (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Breamk (t · c); see discussion
- 11 Dec 2021 – Care UK (talk · · hist) is proposed for splitting by Djm-leighpark (t · c); see discussion
- (4 more...)
Articles for creation
- 13 Jun 2024 – Draft:Journal of Anesthesia History (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by JonathanSmith18 (t · c)
- 12 Jun 2024 – Draft:Anand Reddi (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Trex32 (t · c)
- 11 Jun 2024 – Draft:International Wrist Arthroscopy Society (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Aviancaramp (t · c)
- 10 Jun 2024 – Draft:Jose Wiley (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Cryptic Keyboarder (t · c)
- 10 Jun 2024 – Draft:Carolyn Quadrio (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Bcritical (t · c)
- 09 Jun 2024 – Draft:Charles Malden Oman (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by OkcuhC (t · c)
- 09 Jun 2024 – Draft:Samuel Zaltzman (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Xlaesch (t · c)
- 09 Jun 2024 – Draft:Alice Litman (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by 13tez (t · c)
- 08 Jun 2024 – Draft:William A. Banks (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Qwerfjkl (bot) (t · c)
- 06 Jun 2024 – Draft:Diagnostikare (talk · · hist) has been submitted for AfC by S0091 (t · c)
- (71 more...)
Medical articles up for deltion
Medicine
Lybrate
- 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)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Companies. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Internet, Software, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
HeartMath Institute
- HeartMath Institute (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)
Content previously deleted for lack of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartmath Institute, recreated under a trivially different capitalization. This is a fringe institute, for which the refbomb of references are either passing mentions, not independent, or not reliable sources. This should at best be redirected to Lew Childre, as the original Heartmath Institute has been. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Gargleafg, Jytdog, Bon courage, 79616gr, and TTTommy111: Pinging participants in the previous discussion, although most are not long absent (and one has changed username). BD2412 T 17:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|✉ 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - On its face, the organization seems notable. However, a closer look at the references seem like it is simply promoting itself. For instance, this article in Wired has a disclaimer that the writer received one of the devices and is not a doctor (curious why a non-medical professional would do a story on it). Then there is this in the Business Insider but looks like all the information was supplied by the org ("According to Doc Childre, founder of the Institute of HeartMath") so not independent. They simply do not pass the test of WP:SIRS. If anything, a redirect to Lew Childre as an WP:ATD would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- The purpose of the Business Insider quote you mention to is distinguish between what the institute claims their device can do and the author's own review. This is exactly what an independent source should do. That being said, I think there's better sources than the Business Insider article anyway. ChaseK (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - Fringe but notable. For WP:RS about their non-science claims there's 1 from WP:INDYUK, 2 3 from Wired, and 4 from Engadget which are all rated reliable in WP:PS. With respect to "coherence" there's a literature review 5, and for their fringe theories as per WP:PARITY there's also 6 by James Coyne and 7 by Steven Novella. There's plenty of reliable information here you just have to use the sources judiciously. Since Lew Childre's notability mostly derives from the institute, if anything I'd add a redirect the other way; there's far more coverage of the institute than him. ChaseK (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
- To quote WP:PRODUCT: "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article." In this case the org has broader notability than its products, and so the org article should be preferred over product articles. ChaseK (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
- This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I hear what you are saying but if notability of this company is based on skepticism, the references must still meet WP:ORGCRIT. These do not. It looks like the company did some well-planned press which gained a little traction about a decade ago and then a few who guest posted on some sites to counter it. if the company was worthy of notice, we would have plenty of in-depth coverage showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- No the skeptical sources 5-7 don't establish notability, they only contextualize the other coverage. Sources 1-4 were meant to establish notability. For example: 1: Jerome Burne is health journalist independent of the subject, The Independant is generally considered reliable, and the article has substantial coverage. Seems fine for use in non-WP:MEDRS statements. ChaseK (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Also, this is promotional and unencyclopedic. I won't revert since this is going through discussion, but if the page is kept it would need to go through a discussion per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- @CNMall41: I would also point out, relevant to the discussion, that there are government contractors that receive billions or tens of billions of dollars per year. A company receiving $4 million over a twenty year period is of no moment. BD2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect, given the paucity of the sources; thank you CNMall41. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/Redirect as per above. WP:NCORP fail. Not every pseudoscience org can have a Wikipedia page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Slight POV slant, would need significant rewriting to be in line with MOS, but this is largely irrelevant due to the questionability of the references and previous AfD verdict.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I've added this to the Paranormal-related deletion discussion list. 5Q5|✉ 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Delete per WP:ATTACK. This page exists primarily to disparage its subject. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Vaidam Health
- Vaidam Health (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)
Created evading a salting of Vaidam. Sources:
- No mention of the topic I can find
- A student's final exam is not a reliable source
- Consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
- Not in-depth enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH
- Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
- Interview - consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
- This reads like a press release, despite the lack of explicit language admitting to such, and has no listed author so I'm not convinced it's reliable.
- Consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
- This looks promising, but I can't access it.
- No mention of the topic I can find
- WP:TOI should not be used to establish notability for companies, and in any event except for the first paragraph which doesn't satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH this consists entirely of content attributed to the company, failing WP:ORGIND
- Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH
- Does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH and given the tone and the lack of a listed author I'm not convinced it's reliable either.
- The article itself is both from the Times and India and does not discuss the topic in sufficient depth to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. The case study itself is more interesting, but does that make a reliable source?
- Duplicate of source 9
- Primary source
So there may be a vague glimmer of merit smothered under the REFBOMB, but not enough to let this title-gaming slip by without review. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Medicine, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Great source assessment. I did a spot check of the current sourcing and also a quick search online. Cannot find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT. Plenty of mentions, churnalism, or otherwise unreliable sourcing. Nothing that would show CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- without reviewing the in-depth of source, ofcourse it will show nothing, thanks for your suggestion Captain sparrow199 (talk) 05:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- delete: made to evade a salting, fails multiple guidelines, cites various strange sources. if that's not grounds for deletion i don't know what is. Noelle!!! (summon a demon or read smth) 16:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete or maybe redirect to Medical_tourism#India. I'd put this on my to-do list because there was so much spamming going on in the general category, the sourcing looked extremely thin, and I wasn't sure how to assess the case study, but either way I don't think the case study is enough. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- did few changes in article, share your suggestion again Captain sparrow199 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
- I've reverted an attempt by the creator to move this to draft namespace out of process while the AfD was still pending. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable, written like an advertisement, and created by gaming the system.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Non-violent abortion protests
- Non-violent abortion protests (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)
Seems to be a WP:POVFORK of anti-abortion movements/United States anti-abortion movement, which covers these topics. Not to say there's no such thing as "non-violent abortion protests" but that it's not an independent topic. For better or worse, there's a lot of media coverage of anti-abortion violence, but the same coverage doesn't exist that treats non-violent protests as a distinct subject that passes WP:GNG (and at minimum WP:NOPAGE would apply). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Medicine. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Anti-abortion movements. This title could be read to imply that most protests against abortion are violent, with the non-violent ones being rarer. That appears to be a WP:NPOV and WP:V violation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete the vast majority of anti-abortion protests are already non-violent in nature. The anti-abortion movements page is therefore mostly covering the topic of non-violent abortion protests already. A page for 'anti-abortion terrorism', by contrast, would be justified for creation if it doesn't exist already, as it is markedly different from most anti-abortion movements and it has a fair amount of media attention. Reesorville (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to anti-abortion movements. Article is already covered, and the POV in this article is slanted throughout with no justification of using a separate article.Thanks,NeuropolTalk 13:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Surgery
Proposed deletions
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
![]() | The Signpost
|