Wikipedia

User:Biosthmors/Bugs

< User:Biosthmors
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 on Wikipedia on my user talk page 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
  1. ^ Original here; archived here.
  2. ^ 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)
The Signpost
25 April 2024
 

Things going on with WikiProject Medicine articles edit

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(9 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

(2 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(19 more...)

Articles to be split

(5 more...)

Articles for creation

(38 more...)

Medical articles up for deltion edit

Medicine edit

Medtral edit

AfDs for this article:
Medtral (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)

Non-notable company for medical tourism. Discussed at Wikipedia:New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board that it was set up by an SPA for promotional reasons. First AfD in 2009 closed as no consensus. Schwede66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Zealand. Schwede66 20:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotion for an apparently defunct company. The website listed in the article (www.medtral.com) is dead, and a search for Medtral on www.mercyascot.co.nz returns nothing. I was the nominator for the first AfD for this article.-Gadfium (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly promotional. Citations establish existence not notability. Appears to fail SIGCOV> DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:34, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital edit

Khalifa Gul Nawaz Teaching Hospital (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 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) 16:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Minesh Mehta edit

Minesh Mehta (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)

Written as an advert for a radiation oncologist. Possible COI edits by User:Anniyam and User:Pikar 81. GobsPint (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana edit

Larkana Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Radiotherapy, Larkana (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 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)

Medixsysteme edit

Medixsysteme (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)

Spammy promotional page written by connected WP:SPA-contributors. Does not appear to even have a functional website let alone any rs's. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad edit

Ab Sadeghi-Nejad (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)

After the cruft was removed, it seems there's nothing that supports WP:NPROF. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Massachusetts. UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, California, Illinois, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. No significant independent RS coverage that I could find. Only hits in WP:LIBRARY are his research papers and a quote in Men's Health about growth hormone therapy. His book is self-published and I couldn't find any reviews. That leaves us with WP:NPROF criteria. I think the research impact criterion is the only one that might apply, but I'm unfamiliar with the subject area so will leave that for others to evaluate. Jfire (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jfire, others, I do not see signs of significant academic impact here. I see on Google Scholar several papers with a moderate number of citations, but in a medium-to-higher citation field. (Even in a lower citation field, I'm generally looking for several papers with more citations than the highest cited one I see of his.) Awards listed in the article are all WP:MILL, as is membership on an editorial board. I was cursory in checking NAUTHOR and GNG, but did not quickly see a pass. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sadeghi-Nejad is one of the most notable experts in the field of pediatric endocrinology, globally, and his publications support that. A niche medical field does not have the same number of citations as more general research areas. In addition, the book Dreams of Persia is an important contribution to Persian-American culture and linguistic heritage. KatMaldon (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC) — KatMaldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health edit

The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public 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)

Article PRODded with reason " Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by article creator who added several sources to the article, as well as links to the GScholar profiles of the editors. Unfortunately, none of the references are in-depth discussions of this journal and most are not independent either. The GScholar profiles strongly suggest that none of the editors are notable themselves, with the possible exception of one, but in any case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


I am writing to contest the proposed deletion of the Wikipedia page for "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health." My argument rests on several pillars of Wikipedia's notability guidelines, specifically those related to academic journals (WP:NJournals) and the general notability guideline (WP:GNG). Here are the key points supporting the retention of this page:

1. Significant Contribution and Scope: The journal was established during the critical period of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to inform policymakers and appraise best research practices in the fields of medicine, law, and public health. Its interdisciplinary focus spans crucial areas such as epidemiology, mental health, emergency medicine, and medical ethics, underscoring its broad academic and practical relevance.

2. Indexing and Accessibility: "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" is indexed in WorldCat (OCLC No. 1427524091), affirming its accessibility and presence in significant academic repositories. This indexing supports the journal's credibility and accessibility to researchers globally, an important criterion under WP:NJournals.

3. Editorial Credibility: The editorial board comprises scholars who are actively contributing to their respective fields, as evidenced by their profiles on Google Scholar. This not only demonstrates the journal's commitment to high academic standards but also enriches its contributions to the academic community.

4. Publication of Notable Research: The journal has published significant research studies, such as those assessing patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and evaluating temperature measurement methods during the pandemic. These publications are indicative of the journal's active role in addressing timely and impactful health issues, aligning with WP:NJournals emphasis on the journal's influence in its field.

5. Adherence to Rigorous Academic Standards: It adheres to a stringent double-blind peer-review process, ensuring the integrity and quality of published research. This process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and supports the journal's standing in the academic community.

6. Future Directions and Potential for Growth: Plans to expand into cutting-edge areas such as artificial intelligence in healthcare and the legal implications of emerging medical technologies signal the journal's forward-thinking approach and potential for future impact on interdisciplinary research, fulfilling aspects of WP:GNG.

In light of the above points, it is clear that "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" meets both the specific notability standards set forth for academic journals and the general criteria under WP:GNG. The journal's contributions to its fields, its accessibility, and its rigorous editorial standards all argue against its deletion and for its further development and recognition on Wikipedia.hence: Keep. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: I'm appreciative of your devotion to this subject but unfortunately, none of the above shows any notability and misses WP:NJournals and WP:GNG by a mile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for acknowledging the efforts to improve the article. I understand your concerns regarding the notability standards as per WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. However, I would like to further substantiate the journal's significance by presenting detailed evidence, particularly focusing on the impact and recognition of its editorial board, which indirectly enhances the journal’s credibility:
    • Editorial Board’s Scholarly Impact: The editors of "The Journal of Medicine, Law & Public Health" are not only experts in their fields but also highly cited scholars. For example, Sharafaldeen Bin Nafisah, the editor-in-chief, is well-recognized for his contributions to medical law and public health, with a substantial citation count reflecting his extensive influence. Similarly, Abdulaziz Boker, known for his work in medical education and ethics, and Jameel Abualenain, focused on emergency medicine and public health policy, have publications that are widely cited, indicating their prominent roles in shaping academic discourse. Other editors like Bandr Mzahim, Abdulrahman Ahmad Alzahrani, and Khaled Al-Surimi bring significant insights from emergency medicine, health informatics, and public health advancements, respectively, each with a strong citation record that underscores their scholarly impact. Almost all of the editors of this journal have more than 200+ citations individually.
    • Independent Citations of Published Articles: Several articles published in the journal have been independently cited in other scholarly works, demonstrating the journal's role in contributing valuable knowledge to the field. For instance, studies on patient satisfaction during COVID-19 and the effectiveness of temperature measurements during the pandemic have been cited multiple times according to Google Scholar, indicating their impact on related research areas.
    • Indexing and Academic Usage: Beyond just being listed in WorldCat, the journal's articles are referenced and used by academics and professionals, affirming its utility and relevance in the fields of medicine, law, and public health.
    • Broad Academic Discourse and Future Directions: The journal’s commitment to expanding into interdisciplinary research involving emerging technologies like AI in healthcare represents its potential to influence future academic and practical applications, aligning with the WP:GNG which requires potential for significant coverage.
    • A book called "The Art of Emergency Medicine: A Practical Approach for Emergency Physicians" has been published in 2021.This resource is crucial for assisting emergency healthcare practitioners in navigating the complex treatment of both adult and pediatric emergency cases.
    In light of this additional information, I urge the community to reconsider the notability of the journal. The citation metrics and scholarly influence of its editorial board, combined with the independent citations of its articles, substantiate the journal's impact and relevance in its academic field, thus meeting the criteria set out in WP:NJournals and WP:GNG. Their collective contributions ensure that the journal remains a critical resource in the fields of medicine, law, and public health, enhancing its notability and justifying its presence on Wikipedia. Andrewjenner75 (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication that this journal has gotten any significant coverage. Nothing other than the creating editor's opinion of its importance suggest it meets WP:NJournals. Getting an OCLC number is no criterion at all, that just means that at least one library somewhere has it in its holdings; it's no more a sign of notability than an individual in the US having a social security number. The potential notability of some of its contributors in no way suggests that the journal has inherited that notability; see WP:NOTINHERITED. TJRC (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, clear fail of WP:NJOURNALS, per RK and per TJRC. Headbomb (alt) (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States edit

China and the opioid epidemic in the United States (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)

Page is a WP:POVFORK of the page Opioid epidemic in the United States, information from this article could be incorporated into that article, however creating a separate page just on this issue is entirely unnecessary when we already have Illegal drug trade in China. The contents of this article can easily be incorporate or are already incorporated into those two articles. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep This article on the smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States is strongly supported by high-quality secondary sources that establish the subject's notability and significant in geopolitics. Sources such as the Brookings Institution [7] and the Council on Foreign Relations [8] provide in-depth analyses of China's role in the global fentanyl crisis, detailing the inadequacies in enforcement of regulations post-2019, and the shift in trafficking routes that continue to impact the U.S. Furthermore, the German Marshall Fund offers a nuanced view on the fluctuating dynamics of U.S.-China cooperation on narcotics, emphasizing the geopolitical complexities that underscore the ongoing challenges in addressing this critical issue [9]. We can't possibly cover all aspects of this subject in the mother article, which is already bursting at the seams. This is a classic content fork project. FailedMusician (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    Then include it in the Illegal drug trade in China article. The first sentence "Smuggling of fentanyl from China to the United States has significantly contributed to the opioid epidemic in the United States, an issue that has persisted since the 1990s." reads as though China has been a major contributing factor to the opioid epidemic since the nineties - does not seem like a super neutral POV. Plus the article really only addresses fentanyl. Additionally not sure what the paragraph starting with "In a subsequent visit on July 6–9, US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen..." has to do with the topic. If you remove extraneous information it is definitely trimmable to a section in a different article - heck even expand United States sanctions against China as you have already been doing. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • merge back to main article Some of this material is already there, and the rest should be. I note also that the title is misleading in that it treats the foreign relation aspect in general, not just about China. Mangoe (talk) 02:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Illegal drug trade in China I agree with the nomination the content could be better described there, and having the content there gives potential for a more WP:GLOBAL perspective on the issue. Jumpytoo Talk 04:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge (partial) the subject is a synthesis and the article a fork. The China connection is already discussed in the main article. It shouldn't be much longer than that, but a limited merge might be ok. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Partial Merge I agree with Draken Bowser - also am concerned an independent article will become a possible POV content fork. I don't think a bunch of neo-cold-war anxiety will benefit a neutral encyclopedia. Simonm223 (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment The Illegal drug trade in China is almost exclusively about the trade going on...unsurprisingly... in China. This article is almost exclusively about the impact outside of China, and the geopolitical consequences with the US. I'm not entirely opposed to merging but it would have to be merged into the right article, and I don't think there is one. This article has enough content to stand on its own, and it currently respects MOS:SO given that it expands upon info in a timeline section: Opioid_epidemic_in_the_United_States#2010s_to_present_(increase_in_fentanyl). The Opioid epidemic in the United States article is >13k words which makes it WP:TOOBIG for a merge that will respect due weight. Glad to see there isn't any 'neo-cold-war anxiety' present in the article when read. Tone is neutral and disinterested, in accordance with WP:NPOV policy. SmolBrane (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Not sure if this is true - Illegal drug trade in China also addresses trafficking within the Golden Triangle and deals with drug treaties and other international relations issues. Furthermore, there is no page that is titled "Mexico and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" or "Afghanistan and the Opioid Epidemic in the United States" - most of the stuff that is covered in the article could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs and placed somewhere else. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Partial MErge to Illegal drug trade in China, being judicious about what we bring over per Draken Bowser. Pinguinn 🐧 03:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Delete should have never been created. Catfurball (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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)

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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)

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)

  • 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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      • 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)
        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)
        • 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)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      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)
      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)
      It's nowhere near in-depth. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
It could go under the "Inspired Activities" section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

Comment: Short-term productivity changes could be covered at Short-term effects of alcohol consumption but aren't explicitly. If they were, then that could be a merge/expansion target, where this term/concept could be referenced. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see some support for Merge/Redirect as a viable ATD, but no consensus as to a target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

    • I'm saying that under WP:PAGEDECIDE, it makes more sense given the current sourcing to consider this a subsidiary topic under xkcd. In the future it might easily grow in significance to warrant a free-standing article. Scholarly articles are not the only indicia of notability, nor are they the sine qua non of freestanding notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

      Two studies into a specific type of influence of a depressant does not necessary make for a stand-alone article. I'm sure you could find a pair of studies for any part of the alcohol experience. The sourcing here is not comparable to our articles on Impact of alcohol on aging, Alcohol and cancer, Effects of alcohol on memory, Alcohol use and sleep, etc. It does feel like a subsection for Short-term effects of alcohol consumption if all we have is these two studies. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
      Sure, but it does meet the requirements of WP:N, yes? I mean there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the topic. And that is the bar here? Hobit (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

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

 
The Signpost
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biosthmors/Bugs&oldid=601209600"