Jump to content

User:Biosthmors/Things

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
24 December 2024
Some things I could ponder or do
[edit]




Questions

Should venous thrombosis be a definition and a disambiguation to deep vein thrombosis, superficial vein thrombosis, and venous thromboembolism? Should superficial thrombophlebitis redirect to superficial vein thrombosis? Does thrombophlebitis deserve its own article? Probably more than phlebothrombosis does

Is the National Acupuncture Detoxification Association notable?

Potential secondary sources
[edit]
  • Darvall K, Bradbury A (2012). "Pathways for venous thromboembolic prophylaxis in medical and surgical patients". Phlebology. 27 Suppl 2 (2_suppl): 33–42. doi:10.1258/phleb.2012.012S36. PMID 22457303.
  • Romualdi E, Dentali F, Rancan E, Squizzato A, Steidl L, Middeldorp S; et al. (2013). "Anticoagulant therapy for venous thromboembolism during pregnancy: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of the literature". J Thromb Haemost. 11 (2): 270–81. doi:10.1111/jth.12085. PMID 23205953. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Fox BD, Kahn SR, Langleben D; et al. (2012). "Efficacy and safety of novel oral anticoagulants for treatment of acute venous thromboembolism: Direct and adjusted indirect meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials". BMJ. 345: e7498. doi:10.1136/bmj.e7498. PMC 3496553. PMID 23150473. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Greer DM, Styer AK, Toth TL; et al. (2010). "Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Case 21-2010. A request for retrieval of oocytes from a 36-year-old woman with anoxic brain injury". N Engl J Med. 363 (3): 276–83. doi:10.1056/NEJMcpc1004360. PMID 20647203. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • "Venous thromboembolic diseases: The management of venous thromboembolic diseases and the role of thrombophilia testing". National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. 2012.
  • Baglin T (2012). "Inherited and acquired risk factors for venous thromboembolism". Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 33 (2): 127–37. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1311791. PMID 22648484.
  • Baglin T, Bauer K, Douketis J; et al. (2012). "Duration of anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of an unprovoked pulmonary embolus or deep vein thrombosis: guidance from the SSC of the ISTH". J Thromb Haemost. 10 (4): 698–702. doi:10.1111/j.1538-7836.2012.04662.x. PMID 22332937. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Incident vs. recurrent
Vandalism on medically-related featured articles
  • [10] 37 min, 13 Feb 2012, Lung cancer.
  • [11] 54 min, 6 Mar 2012, Helicobacter pylori.
  • [12] 102 min, 7 Mar 2012, Schizophrenia.
  • [13] 91 min, 30 Mar 2012, Coeliac disease.
  • [14] 148 min, 12 April 2012, Menstrual cycle.
Miscellaneous
[edit]

Vandalism on medically-related good articles 111 min, 8 Mar 2012, Hepatitis B; Bugs: [15], [16]&[17]; Promotion; Commentary on neutrality, A good contribution: Talk:Malaria/GA2; FA advice; From a reader, a thank you; [18]; assignment[19]

WikiProject Medicine assessment statistics
Medicine articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 7 14 20 23 64
FL 2 4 9 15
FM 80 80
GA 31 47 112 187 1 378
B 57 436 1,339 1,762 2 37 3,633
C 6 421 3,207 7,776 2 189 11,601
Start 131 4,547 17,863 1 443 22,985
Stub 1,613 9,949 1 510 12,073
List 23 271 586 17 897
Category 7,961 7,961
Disambig 173 173
File 478 478
Portal 65 65
Project 102 102
Redirect 447 838 3,489 4,774
Template 1,218 1,218
NA 12 10 186 208
Other 106 106
Draft 188 188
Assessed 101 1,074 11,572 39,003 14,046 6 1,197 66,999
Unassessed 4 10 87 101
Total 101 1,074 11,572 39,007 14,046 16 1,284 67,100
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 245,428 Ω = 4.84

worklist • log • category

Translation task force assessment statistics
WikiProject Medicine Translation Task Force articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 5 8
GA 24 15 39
B 2 149 2 153
C 1 74 1 2 2 80
Start 7 1 8
Stub 1 1
Category 4 4
Project 3 3
Assessed 30 250 3 3 7 3 296
Total 30 250 3 3 7 3 296
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 903 Ω = 3.12

worklist • log • category


Did you know

Articles for deletion

(1 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

Good article nominees

(11 more...)

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(10 more...)

Articles to be split

(5 more...)

Articles for creation

(23 more...)


Medicine

[edit]

Geoff Tabin

[edit]
Geoff Tabin (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)

Does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Fairweather Foundation is a small non-notable foundation. Risker (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.
I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!
If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [20]. ResonantDistortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

CELFULL

[edit]
CELFULL (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)

Promotional article for a supplement producer that fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is all actual or regurgitated press releases or other non-independent work (such as a journal article that Celfull paid for in part). No independent coverage here that isn't WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Credence Hospital

[edit]
Credence 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)

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)

Shalabh Gupta

[edit]
Shalabh Gupta (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 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)

Nectar Lifesciences

[edit]
Nectar Lifesciences (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)

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)

Jay Prabha Medanta Super Specialty Hospital

[edit]
Jay Prabha Medanta 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)

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)

Vabbing

[edit]
Vabbing (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)

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

  • Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([21] [22] [23] [24]) 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 [25], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [26].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

AEYE Health

[edit]
AEYE 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)

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)

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:
  • [27] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
  • [28] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
  • [29] is not independent
  • [30] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
  • [31] is a copy of a press release
  • [32] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
  • [33] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
  • [34] copy of a press release
  • [35] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
  • [36] Summary of a press release
  • [37] Summary of a press release
  • [38] Summary of a press release
  • [39] 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.
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)
  • Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing++ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ram Vishwakarma

[edit]
Ram Vishwakarma (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)

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 ([40]) 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 ([41], [42], [43] and [44]). 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)

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]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Biosthmors/Things&oldid=1023540647"