Wikipedia

User:Draeco/Desk

< User:Draeco

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

Translate edit

Articles edit

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


Medicine edit

St. Peter's House Hospital edit

St. Peter's House 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)

Fails GNG and NCORP. Nothing found that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found routine local mill news articles, mentions, nothing showing this meets NCORP. Coverage found is mainly about the closing and possible replacement.  // Timothy :: talk  03:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and Medicine. Pabsoluterince (talk) 09:58, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Wow. I'm a little surprised news actually returned zero results for once. Nothing useful in books, nothing at all in Qwant, nothing useful in ProQuest. Delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:33, 4 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 [2] and the Council on Foreign Relations [3] 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 [4]. 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)

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)
  • Comment I created the original article. And with the help of Hobit‘s links in this thread, I added additional citations from Fortune, TechCrunch, and Venturebeat, including one where it was mentioned in an interview with Ballmer himself to bolster the SIRS case.

It’s not a medical phenomenon. It’s a satirical concept that is an Internet meme that has become significant enough that it is mentioned in multiple articles, including those that are about Ballmer (the one-time CEO of one of the largest companies in the history of the planet) himself. There is a news article (with video) on an event inspired by the topic of this article. If you were to merge it into something, it would be to Steve Ballmer, rather than xkcd, since the article coverage about Ballmer peak generally links it to Ballmer (in an interview, stock jump upon his retirement) and not around xkcd. But I don’t think it should be merged. I think it should just stay as an article. Jenny8lee (talk) 09:32, 4 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


Spanish Translations edit

I was once prominent in the WP:SPATRA (history). My offshoot translations were:

Independent projects:

Former cleanups edit

Cleanup Taskforce
Desk Queue: 0
Areas of Expertise
geography, world politics and government

I am no longer a participant in the Cleanup Taskforce. My former contributions are listed below; you may submit a cleanup request here.

AfD edit

Abbreviated Deletion Tools
Articles (howto|log)

{{subst:afd}}   {{relist}}
{{subst:prod|why}}

Speedy

{{delete}}   {{db-reason|because}}
{{db-author}}   see cat for more
{{db-nonsense}}   {{nocontext}}
{{db-test}}   {{db-banned}}
{{db-empty}}   {{db-catempty}}
{{db-bio}}   {{db-band}}
{{db-attack}}   {{db-notenglish}}
{{db-copyvio}}   {{db-repost}}
{{db-vandalism}}   {{vandalism}}

Redirects (howto|log)
Miscellaneous (log)
Copyvios (howto|log)

{{rfd}}   {{md1}}   {{copyvio}}

Mergers

{{merge}}
{{mergeto}}   {{mergefrom}}
{{merging}}   {{afd-mergeto}}
{{afd-mergefrom}}

Page moves

{{move}}   {{moveoptions}}
{{CapitalMove}}

Transwiki (howto|log)

{{Move to Wiktionary}}
{{Move to Wikisource}}
{{Move to Wikibooks}}
{{Move to Wikiquote}}

Deletion review, policy, log

I no longer believe in AfD, but I retain this template to help me navigate that wasteland if necessary.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Draeco/Desk&oldid=843141669"