User:Biosthmors/Bugs

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 :

[1] (described here), [2], [3], [4] with related issues in comments 9, 16, and 20 here, [5]

To report bug/feature requests:

crawl WP:ENB archives, [6] (from here),

References

^ Original here; archived here.
^ Griffiths R, Richards W, Johnson M, McCann U, Jesse R (2008). "Mystical-type experiences occasioned by psilocybin mediate the attribution of personal meaning and spiritual significance 14 months later". J Psychopharmacol. 22 (6): 621–32. doi:10.1177/0269881108094300. PMC 3050654. PMID 18593735.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Things going on with WikiProject Medicine articles

Did you know

31 Dec 2024 – Scientific Research Institute of Medicine of the Ministry of Defense in Sergiyev Posad (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Geni (t · c); see discussion
03 Dec 2024 – Abortion in Mauritius (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for DYK by Vigilantcosmicpenguin (t · c); see discussion

Articles for deletion

01 Jan 2025 – Shalabh Gupta (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Nyxion303 (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
30 Dec 2024 – Jay Prabha Medanta Super Specialty Hospital (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by TCBT1CSI (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
30 Dec 2024 – Nectar Lifesciences (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by TCBT1CSI (t · c); see discussion (1 participant)
26 Dec 2024 – Bangladesh Navy Medical College, Chattogram (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by GrabUp (t · c); see discussion (4 participants)
22 Dec 2024 – Brian Thompson (businessman) (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Coretheapple (t · c); see discussion (53 participants; relisted)
21 Dec 2024 – Vabbing (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Qwirkle (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
17 Dec 2024 – AEYE Health (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Bilby (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted)
17 Dec 2024 – Nathalie Beasnael (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Dclemens1971 (t · c); see discussion (3 participants; relisted)
15 Dec 2024 – Ram Vishwakarma (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Taabii (t · c); see discussion (5 participants; relisted)

Proposed deletions

22 Dec 2024 – National Society of Certified Healthcare Business Consultants (talk · edit · hist) PRODed by LibStar (t · c) was deleted

Categories for discussion

25 Dec 2024 – Category:Deaths from cerebrovascular disease (talk · edit · hist) was CfDed by Marcocapelle (t · c); see discussion

Redirects for discussion

29 Dec 2024 – Dronabinolum (talk · edit · hist) →Tetrahydrocannabinol was RfDed by 1234qwer1234qwer4 (t · c); see discussion
27 Dec 2024 – Rehabilitation (addiction) (talk · edit · hist) →Drug rehabilitation was RfDed by Someone-123-321 (t · c); see discussion
25 Dec 2024 – Did (talk · edit · hist) →Dissociative identity disorder was RfDed by Kolano123 (t · c); see discussion
12 Dec 2024 – Pregnant men (talk · edit · hist) →Transgender pregnancy was RfDed by LIrala (t · c); see discussion

Good article nominees

30 Dec 2024 – Havana syndrome (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Noleander (t · c); start discussion
29 Dec 2024 – Histamine intolerance (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
28 Dec 2024 – Hiroshima Maidens (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Spookyaki (t · c); start discussion
24 Dec 2024 – Salt water aspiration syndrome (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Strange Orange (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Doxycycline (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Drug-eluting stent (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Ketotifen (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Modafinil (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – CYP4F2 (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by Maxim Masiutin (t · c); start discussion
23 Dec 2024 – Parkinson's disease (talk · edit · hist) was GA nominated by HAL333 (t · c); see discussion

(9 more...)

Requests for comments

30 Dec 2024 – COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · edit · hist) has an RfC by Slatersteven (t · c); see discussion

Peer reviews

30 Dec 2024 – Valve-sparing aortic root replacement (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Jarrod Baniqued (t · c); see discussion
15 Dec 2024 – Intersex healthcare (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by Urchincrawler (t · c); see discussion
03 Dec 2024 – Neurocysticercosis (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by IntentionallyDense (t · c); see discussion
22 Oct 2024 – Crohn's disease (talk · edit · hist) has been put up for PR by AdeptLearner123 (t · c); see discussion

Requested moves

28 Dec 2024 – Tawana Brawley rape allegations (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Tawana Brawley rape hoax by GGOTCC (t · c); see discussion
28 Dec 2024 – Grandiose delusions (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Delusions of grandeur by InfiniteNexus (t · c); see discussion
15 Dec 2024 – Niacin (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Nicotinic acid by Arthurfragoso (t · c); see discussion
12 Dec 2024 – 2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to Effects of the Israel-Hamas war on pregnancy and childbirth in the Gaza Strip by DocZach (t · c); see discussion
07 Dec 2024 – University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to UC San Diego School of Medicine by Coolcaesar (t · c); see discussion
22 Dec 2024 – University of California, San Francisco (talk · edit · hist) move request to UCSF by Theparties (t · c) was not moved; see discussion
19 Dec 2024 – Sowa Rigpa (Traditional Tibetan medicine) (talk · edit · hist) move request to Traditional Tibetan medicine by Seefooddiet (t · c) was moved to Traditional Tibetan medicine (talk · edit · hist) by Frost (t · c) on 26 Dec 2024; see discussion

Articles to be merged

25 Dec 2024 – Alcohol-related brain damage (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Long-term impact of alcohol on the brain by Mathnerd314159 (t · c); see discussion
20 Dec 2024 – Psychoneuroendocrinology (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Psychoneuroimmunology by 2A01:CB16:64:AE30:0:15:9752:CD01 (t · c); see discussion
19 Dec 2024 – Zoonotic origins of COVID-19 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Origin of SARS-CoV-2 by Lardlegwarmers (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2024 – Sexual anomalies (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Disorders of sex development by Urchincrawler (t · c); see discussion
10 Dec 2024 – Disorders of sex development (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Sexual anomalies by Urchincrawler (t · c); see discussion
02 Dec 2024 – Email apnea (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Email by IntentionallyDense (t · c); see discussion
01 Dec 2024 – Norepinephrine–dopamine releasing agent (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Amphetamine type stimulant by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
07 Nov 2024 – Amphetamine type stimulant (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Norepinephrine–dopamine releasing agent by 76.174.0.57 (t · c); see discussion
02 Oct 2024 – Global spread of H5N1 in 2007 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Global spread of H5N1 by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion
02 Oct 2024 – Global spread of H5N1 in 2005 (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for merging to Global spread of H5N1 by Klbrain (t · c); see discussion

(7 more...)

Articles to be split

04 Dec 2024 – Fluticasone furoate (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Tikmok (t · c); see discussion
22 Apr 2024 – State health agency (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by GobsPint (t · c); see discussion
20 Apr 2024 – Health department (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by GobsPint (t · c); see discussion
28 Mar 2024 – United Network for Organ Sharing (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by 45.26.61.142 (t · c); see discussion
03 Jan 2024 – Anisakis (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion
17 Nov 2023 – Mycoplasma (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Artoria2e5 (t · c); see discussion
27 May 2023 – Health advocacy (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Felix QW (t · c); see discussion
31 Mar 2023 – Range of motion (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Urbourbo (t · c); see discussion
02 Oct 2022 – Soft diet (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by AngusWOOF (t · c); see discussion
04 Jan 2022 – Arthur Neve (talk · edit · hist) is proposed for splitting by Breamk (t · c); see discussion

(5 more...)

Articles for creation

01 Jan 2025 – Draft:Victoria Shanmugam (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by SilverLocust (t · c)
28 Dec 2024 – Draft:James N. Kochenderfer (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Truck2727 (t · c)
18 Dec 2024 – Draft:Dana Vulin (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Washlab (t · c)
16 Dec 2024 – Draft:Transplant Benefit Score (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by The Anome (t · c)
14 Dec 2024 – Draft:Luciano Gattinoni (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Horstie (t · c)
09 Dec 2024 – Draft:Umbilical-urachal sinus (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by WikiWlnu (t · c)
06 Dec 2024 – Draft:Ven-A-Care (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Coffeeandkittens25 (t · c)
03 Dec 2024 – Draft:Stanley Inhorn (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Nilotumben (t · c)
25 Nov 2024 – Draft:Breast Cancer Canada (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Kark345 (t · c)
25 Nov 2024 – Draft:Tattelecom (talk · edit · hist) has been submitted for AfC by Хабиль Сәхәбиев (t · c)

(24 more...)

Medical articles up for deltion

Medicine

Credence Hospital

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

This seems to be a straightforward promotion of an IVF clinic and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Charlie (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Charlie (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Shalabh Gupta

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP.
Sources provided (in order):

(1): Business Daily: A puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(2): Mifeed: The title says “Blazing Trails In Biotech”, need I say more? Same as above. Published in the same week as the above source and another puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(3): Company website: Primary source, as this is the company's own site. Self-published content.
(4): LA Harbor News: I am unable to visit the site and therefore cannot vet this. My browser tells me this is an unsafe site. Visit at your own direction.
(5): Founders Network: This is another primary source, as it is self-published. Details are taken from an event hosted via EventBrite here.

Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nectar Lifesciences

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Jay Prabha Medanta Super Specialty Hospital

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NHOSPITALS. No source proves it to be a Level 1 trauma center. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Bangladesh Navy Medical College, Chattogram

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 20:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Education, and Medicine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree - delete BakerStMD 20:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Could not find any references in English at this time. Potential recreation from an article written on the Bengali Wikipedia at some point if that comes to exist, but for now this subject does not meet notability standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – This subject does not seem notable and does not have any news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Vabbing

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

Two years marked for notability. Flash-in-the-pan? Qwirkle (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([7] [8] [9] [10]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 [11], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [12].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[13] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[14] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[15] is not independent
[16] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[17] is a copy of a press release
[18] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[19] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[20] copy of a press release
[21] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[22] Summary of a press release
[23] Summary of a press release
[24] Summary of a press release
[25] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nathalie Beasnael

AfDs for this article:

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

While it has been improved from its poor state after creation by a subsequently blocked sock, this is still a WP:PROMO biography for a non-notable individual. Sources are limited to:

The subject's own writing and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs ([26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34])
WP:PRSOURCEs ([35], [36])
Churnalism based on interviews solely with or statements solely by the author (and thus also primary sources) ([37], [38])
Primary source official bios ([39], [40])
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([41])

Meanwhile, the awards she has received are not of the kind to qualify her as notable under WP:ANYBIO. Nothing qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Bottom line: fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - I had the same concerns while editing the article recently. Ligaturama (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ram Vishwakarma

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

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([42]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([43], [44], [45] and [46]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.
Delete: I can't find coverage that can clarify his notoriety.. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)