Jump to content

User:Biosthmors/Bugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
18 November 2024

Things going on with WikiProject Medicine articles

[edit]

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

(3 more...)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Good article reassessments

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(7 more...)

Articles to be split

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

(16 more...)

Medical articles up for deltion

[edit]

Medicine

[edit]

Lee J. Slavutin

[edit]
Lee J. Slavutin (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 by a single purpose editor so possible promotion or autobio. A search for sources in google news and google books yielded nothing in depth. Mainly 1 line mentions in google books, this source "The Sid Kess Approach - Page 82" seems the only decent one. But fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Fayad

[edit]
Ibrahim Fayad (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)

From what I can tell this individual does not meet WP:NBIO. The article had two sources, but one was completely unrelated to this man at all and was instead about The Crown (TV series). The only remaining source is simply a link to his ResearchGate account. I'm not getting much of note on a BEFORE search, although it does seem to be a fairly common name, so someone else might have more success. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine, and Egypt. CoconutOctopus talk 21:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability not found for WP:Prof or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC).
  • Comment. If he actually founded all the things the article states he did, then I think he'd be notable, but I agree sourcing is a problem. He seems to have published as "Ibrahim M. Fayad" or "I. M. Fayad", and there are publications that match his areas of expertise on GS. ETA: It seems to have received a variety of edits from new editors over the past few years (tagged Newcomer edits), which have been of variable quality; I think that's where the spurious The Crown reference originates. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Appears to have been a notable physician in Egypt. He has an entry in this Arabic-language encyclopedia: [8]. Generally we include anyone with an entry in a published encyclopedia under WP:5P1.4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    That's a user-generated source, ostensibly "verified" by "specialists", but anyone can submit articles. It's not RS. JoelleJay (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - insufficient coverage for a good doctor. It’s literally his c.v. written four ways. Bearian (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delia M. Sosa

[edit]
Delia M. Sosa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual appears to fail WP:NBASIC, which presumes notability only when multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. I have reviewed the sources in this article in the source assessment table below:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPDjc9-xVc NPAF via YouTube No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. The remainder are bridges between speakers at that event. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly independent and clearly non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (1) No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is almost entirely a video of a speech given by the subject. There is no independent content here. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF for speaker ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Everyday Trans Activism Podcast No Per WP:NBASIC, sources are required to be "independent of the subject", but this is a raw audio interview of the subject. There is no independent content here ~ Per WP:ABOUTSELF for the response of the interviewee. As for the remainder, this appears to be a WP:SPS inasmuch as "Parents of Trans Youth" appears to be a one-person organization, and the founder is the one interviewing and publishing. ? Moot as clearly non-independent and non-secondary ✘ No
Spectrum News 1 (2) Yes Seems to be an independent WP:NEWSORG doing its own reporting Yes Why not? Yes Seems to contain a reasonably decent amount of independent prose to be considered significant coverage. ✔ Yes
Tufts School of Medicine website No This is a profile by a University PR department of own of their own students. No This is a university PR blog; WP:SPS ain't good enough for facts about living people ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ~ WP:ABOUTSELF ? Moot as clearly non-independent ✘ No
[https://www.endocrine.org/news-and-advocacy/news-room/2023/ama-gender-affirming-care Endocrine Society Press Release No This is a press release No This is a press release No There is not so much a mention of Sosa by name in the piece. ✘ No
Them Yes Seems independent to me Yes For sake of argument No There is one sentence of independent coverage of Sosa in this piece; ther remainder is a quote of the article subject's. ✘ No
500 Queer Scientists No This is a first-person profile on a website that appears to have been written by the article subject. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ? This is the same as source 6; nothing new. ✘ No
MedPage Today Yes Why not? Yes Why not? No Sosa is quoted in the piece, but there are (generously) a mere 2 sentences of independent prose about Sosa in that piece. ✘ No
USA Today Yes USA Today is an indepenent WP:NEWSORG Yes WP:GREL per WP:RSP No While Sosa is quoted thrice, there is very little independent prose about Sosa; WP:NBASIC requires that coverage that contributes towards notability be both secondary in nature and independent of the subject. ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I have also conducted an online search to see if there are additional sources about this person. I was able to find a nomination form for a medical student association role (clearly non-independent), and an interview on the website of The Broad Institute (Sosa appears to have been employed/had a role at the Broad Institute at the time, so the source is non-independent). As such, I don't see multiple sources contributing towards notability here.

Because this individual appears to fail the relevant notability guideline of WP:NBASIC, I believe this article should be deleted in line with WP:DEL-REASON#8. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, and Medicine. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I can remove the medical student association role then. However, I was under the impression that their work with the AMA/Endocrine Society meets the notability guidelines. Tunasaur (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Not enough independent sources, and as nom points out the AMA source doesn't even mention them. This may simply be too soon but it is hard to tell because we don't have such basic information as educational dates. (I have a vague memory of having already seen this at afd but checked the delete log and didn't find it.) Lamona (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    Fair enough. What's the best way to revert to draft? Can keep it just in case more press comes out and it meets guidelines in the future. Tunasaur (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    The point of draftification is to hold an otherwise notable article that does not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards. As such, I don't really see a valid reason to draftify this; the subject isn't notable and we can't peer into a crystal ball to see what the future holds here, and I don't see a particular reason why coverage would be expected to arise in the next six months or so. If future coverage does wind up establishing notability, then the article could be refunded to the draftspace and submitted through Articles for Creation at that time—but that doesn't mean we should indefinitely keep a draft up on a non-notable WP:BLP subject. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Kalaignar Centenary Super Specialty Hospital

[edit]
Kalaignar Centenary Super Specialty 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)

Non-notable hospital. No sources with significant coverage, and I found none online. (all are about the stabbing, which would make the event notable, but not the hospital itself) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Steven E North

[edit]
Steven E North (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see little sign of GNG or other notability. Note that I removed some text for copyvio and naked promotion, including the source [9]. (But this looks to me like a vanity piece, along the lines of Who's Who.) Noting that the tribunenewspaper.com source appears to be in a fake newspaper, or at least the main page is showing something generic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

[edit]
2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
    CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.
Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
WITHDRAWN
Withdrawing as the book demonstrates significant coverage. Thank you to the editor that found it. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 06:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elio García-Austt

[edit]
Elio García-Austt (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 WP:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are plenty of independent reliable sources in GS, but I doubt of there are enough of them. Is GNG or POLITICIAN passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
    He's a scientist/doctor, so I'm not sure what you are asking about WP:POLITICIAN, did you comment on the wrong AfD by mistake? In case you didn't, what do mean by "GS" - the only things that come up on Google are his own papers, not other people talking about him which is required per WP:BIO (and a lack of the special circumstances outlined at WP:ACADEMIC)? Thank you! MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I just saw that it's mentioned in the (entirely unsourced) article that he was a member of the Parliament of Uruguay - but I can't find any RS to back this up so I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is met, unless someone else can find an RS to back this (which would meet WP:POLITICIAN. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. There are maybe 8 lines about him in "Past, present, and future of sleep medicine research in Latin America" [10], an entire book about him in "Elio García-Austt Negri (1919-2005) El uruguayo que fundó la Sociedad Española de Neurociencia" [11], and what looks like a cv (dated 1999) from the Premios Morosoli [es] [12] I'd be happier with more sources but I think those are independent and reliable enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. An entire book on him is sufficient for me to feel that other non-English coverage is likely to exist. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Delayed auditory feedback

[edit]
Delayed auditory feedback (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    Confused bc those sections can easily be included in "electronic fluency devices", as this is an electronic fluency device, right? Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a broader notable concept. Some topics overlap with others and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep per above. @Bl0ckeds0unds Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hyperintensity

[edit]
Hyperintensity (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)

Is mostly a fork of White matter hyperintensity Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 6. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 19:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. White matter hyperintensity is a redirect to Leukoaraiosis which is only one disease that has pathology involving Hyperintensity. Leukoencephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, etc. also have T2 hyperintensity imaging results. Not really seeing a need to delete this as they are different by related topics with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    hmm... saw Leukoaraiosis mostly talking about WMH, but you are right. I think its the a subcategory of WMH, so surprising it takes up the whole WMH redirect.
    There is some weirdness happening here.
    • Leukoaraiosis is a subcategory of WMH, and I think does not appear much often at all in literature (only 20k hits on google Scholar).
    • WMH is the more widely used supercategory to define a presentation. (>100k hits on google scholar)
    • Hyperintensity by itself does not mean much, just abnormal increase in intensity of something, this article is more about White matter hyperintensities.
    I might be in favor of a merge Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
    The overbolding of every other term in the first few paragraphs of hyperintensity definitely suggest a lack of focus for the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
That’s more of a style issue which can be fixed (although redirected words should be bolded under MOS). Honestly I think it’s best to leave the article where it is because hyperintensity, while more common in white matter, can also occur in gray matter. Gray matter hyperintensity is associated with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and can also be a sign of a stroke.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
those are fairly different clinical bases in general even if they show up similar in MRI.
a similar analogy would be high body temp… maybe its cuz person has a fever maybe they have heat stroke, but the measuring instrument says they have a very high temperature… even if there is a similar mechanism of the body overheating the underlying aspects are different enough they should not be combined into a single wikipedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Undoubtedly there’s different clinical causes between hyperintensity appearing in gray matter versus white matter, but that’s not really relevant to what is essentially an article on an imaging term. Hyperintensity on an MRI scan is hyperintensity on an MRI scan no matter where it happens in terms of the kind of tissue it presents in. It seems to me you are confusing an imaging reading term used for diagnostic analysis with the pathophysiology of the diseases often associated with the imaging term. They are related but separate.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 13 November 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
The Signpost
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Biosthmors/Bugs&oldid=601209600"