Jump to content

User:Biosthmors/Things

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
6 November 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 ??? Total
FA 7 14 19 23 63
FL 2 3 9 14
FM 74 74
GA 30 47 112 183 1 373
B 57 427 1,316 1,735 30 3,565
C 5 414 3,173 7,665 171 11,428
Start 136 4,597 17,866 1 382 22,982
Stub 1,603 9,987 500 12,090
List 22 269 566 16 873
Category 10,711 10,711
Disambig 172 172
File 479 479
Portal 540 540
Project 168 168
Redirect 454 834 5,900 7,188
Template 1,726 1,726
NA 10 10
Draft 5 284 289
Assessed 99 1,062 11,546 38,873 20,065 1,100 72,745
Unassessed 1 1 81 83
Total 99 1,062 11,547 38,874 20,065 1,181 72,828
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 244,609 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 2 150 2 154
C 1 73 1 2 2 79
Start 7 1 8
Stub 1 1
Category 4 4
Project 1 2 3
Assessed 31 250 3 3 6 3 296
Total 31 250 3 3 6 3 296
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 902 Ω = 3.12

worklist • log • category


Did you know

Articles for deletion

(4 more...)

Proposed deletions

Templates for discussion

(35 more...)

Redirects for discussion

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

Requests for comments

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

(10 more...)

Articles to be split

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

(15 more...)


Medicine

[edit]

Mark Kotter

[edit]
Mark Kotter (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)

Unless someone can show how this would meet WP:NPROF, subject is not notable under any other guideline. Putting aside COI and UPE, the sources simply do not go into depth about the subject. Just passing mentions. CNMall41 (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Most sourcing I can find is actually about the Meatable company, not about Kotter. Being quoted in some articles about your company doesn't transfer notability to the person, and I don't see any evidence this meets WP:NPROF. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: I agree with CNMall41 and MrOllie. Axad12 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment, leaning keep. Not my area, and I know neuroscience is heavily cited, but according to GS Kotter has two co-authored articles with >1000 citations (one is a review), and a further 18 with >100 citations, which seems to merit consideration under PROF. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable could weigh in? Espresso Addict (talk) 07:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Converting to a formal keep per Ldm1954's comments below. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete Not in-depth because the sources just pass a claim. COI, not at all notable. Agreeing with Axad12, MrOllie, CNMall41. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 17:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extending based on review - more time may be of benefit here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tawker (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep. With an h-factor of 48 he just about passes NPROF#C1. Note that for NPROF we don't require extensive external coverage. If he had significant awards it would be a strong keep; at the moment he squeezes by. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
h-factor can be an indicator, but not proof of notability. We need to show "either several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates. Reviews of the person's work, published in selective academic publications, can be considered together with ordinary citations here." I don't see that here unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@CNMall41, it is very rare to find reviews of the work of scientists except when they receive major awards, in Feitschrifts or obituaries; hence that criteria is rarely used in the AfD discussions I have seen. He has two > 1K cited papers in high quality journals (Nature Reviews, Brain). As I said, I would be happier if there were awards to back up the case but I will argue that he just makes #C1. Please also look at his citation history which has had a rapid growth in 2022-2023 which looks to be continuing in 2024. That does strengthen the case slightly. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and I respect your points. I understand it may be rare but if they don't exists then they don't exist. The coverage in reliable sources is what we need. If the citations pick up in the future, maybe he will meet the threshhold but I think we are even lower than low hanging fruit to say he meet #C1 based on two papers with 1K+ cites. Maybe a redirect to Meatable would be appropriate until such time as he meets the threshold. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but I completely disagree with you. Let me be more definitive; coverage such as reviews of their work is not a viable criteria in almost all of science. There are many scientists without them who already have WP pages. If people cite the work, and it is in a high impact journal that is a strong indicator. Note that this is not HEP where citations are massive.
If you believe 1K is not a significant number of citations I really think you should post a question at WT:NPROF to get more opinions. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Checking, I just looked under one of his GS areas remyelination. The highest cited person has 3 articles with > 1K cites, the 2nd has 1, 3rd 0, 4th 2 and he is fifth. I see no indications this is a very high cites field (e.g. HEP), it is comparable to physics, albeit much higher than math and most arts. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand the disagreement which is why we are discussing. I never said it was not a significant number of citations. I said that #C1 would not be satisfied with two papers of 1K+ citations. If it was, we would have a ton of pages for people who would otherwise not be notable. I agree that a significant number of citations is an indicator of notability, which is why I said "h-factor can be an indicator;" but, it is just that...an indicator. There would need to be an agreement that the amount of cites he has is significant enough to pass the #C1 criteria and I don't think we do. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. If we agree that the subject passes WP:PROF (and I'm not claiming that we do) then GNG arguments are moot. And unless I'm mistaken, outside a few hot-button topics, research papers with >1000 citations are still very rare. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we are close. I don't believe this would meet GNG so the only thing I think we differ on at the moment is if his citations would meet the threshold of #C1. I wouldn't be opposed to requesting other editors with experience in that space to chime in. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, that was what I hoped for when I first commented. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I do see an open discussion from September but it doesn't look like there is headway one direction or the other. Personally, I hate WP:PROF standards as everything is subjective in cases like this.
Interpretation of whether GNG is met is also surprisingly subjective. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It can be, but we have guidance based on discussion and consensus what governs things such significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent coverage. That makes GNG fairly easy at times and subjective in fewer cases than not. Whereas, we don't have guidance (at least none I can find) that helps with PROF, hence the reason for the discussion I guess. Even the September discussion doesn't see to have clarity unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, clear consensus usually arises from PROF-based discussions in AfD, while I have seen endless debates over precisely what constitutes adequate coverage under GNG. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I respect your contention. We will have to disagree on that as well. Different lens I guess. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
PROF#C1 is tricky as you will see from the often (very) extended discussions at WT:NPROF. There are a range of methods for h-factors/citations, but they all boil down to a check of:
  1. Journal reliability, impact factor, notability, e.g. "Nature" versus pay "Pay to play" (predator).
  2. Some disciple scaler. For instance as a crude metric for 3 topics I would equate h-factors as mathematics:15 ~ condensed matter physics:30 ~ High-energy physics:75
  3. The base number. My minimum requirement (45-50) for physics/materials science is quite high, I have see others claim that 30 is notable.
  4. A comparison to others in the field. This matters.
  5. Place in article, e.g. first (did the work), last (managed everything), other (never obvious) and the number of co-authors.
  6. High single paper cites, which indicates that the community considers the work important.
  7. Experience. I changed my scaling for what is notable in mathematics following several AfD discussions and WT:NPROF.
N.B., I steer clear of academics in the arts as I don't know how to judge them unless it is a no-brainer (e.g. FRS, MacArthur). Ldm1954 (talk) 02:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable per GNG guidelines. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
    Please check the WP:NPROF guidelines, they are different from GNG and are what matters here. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get more commentary on whether NPROF 1a is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:PROF#C1. I know this is easily gamed by careful choice of keywords, but rather than looking at his Google Scholar citation profile directly I thought to look at his ranking in the keywords he lists as his research interests. In three of the four, including Remyelination, there are multiple other authors with comparable citation counts and yet he is in the top five. I think that should be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per PROF guidelines. Scopus profile does confirm high level of citations. ResonantDistortion 10:33, 7 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)

Sonoran University of Health Sciences

[edit]
Sonoran University of Health Sciences (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 education business. Most sources are discussion of naturopathy itself, don't mention the article topic, the other three are PRs or the institution's own website. No evidence of coverage in secondary sources. Jdcooper (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Arizona. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep or merge into a new article "Naturopathic schools in the US". I generally agree with Jdcooper's comments but question whether the conclusion is to delete. I tried to improve this article after discovering that it was substantially written by an employee. Despite database searches, I could find little independent and reliable coverage. Sonoran is formerly Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine & Health Sciences. A recent investigation found that its "medical" graduates had the 4th highest debt to earnings ratios among graduate programs in the US. According to tax filings, Sonoran had $20 million of revenues in FY2023. This seems pretty significant, so I don't think a complete deletion is warranted. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Significant, independent coverage does not seem to exist. When the name of the university comes up it is only in brief mentions in articles discussing naturopathic issues at large (example). A merge can't take place if the target article doesn't exist yet; creating it would likely end up with the same issues this article has until other naturopathy schools are identified and added to it, and we would end up with an article that takes a bunch of non-notable information and collates it under a topic that might be notable. NUNM has similar issues, but is discussed more in depth by sources; revenues can be an indicator of notability but it is not coming up in the sources. Reconrabbit 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Gerónimo Lluberas

[edit]
Gerónimo Lluberas (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)

There is insufficient information to support the subject of this article's notability. Even before I began culling this page of non-WP:RS sources, this article had no citations supporting much of the personal life and religious sections. As such, this subject does not meet the guidelines of sufficient coverage and verifiability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Adelle of the Saracens

[edit]
Adelle of the Saracens (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 was quite excited to find this article - and ended up disappointed when I realized that despite its decent size, it does not refer to the subject once beyond the lead section. Of the three cited sources, two do not mention her at all, and the one that does seems to merely list her in an index. I found this book, which says: "Adelle was a physician active in Salerno. All we really know of her is that she was a lecturer at the Salerno Medical School." Indeed this is all the article said 10 years ago when it was created by Aciram, who likely thought that there was more about her somewhere. It seems, however, that nothing beyond these two sentences can be said about Adelle, and so there is no significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose mentioning Adelle in the background section of the article women of Salerno, which is about Salernitan women physicians. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Daniel, Norman (1979). The Arabs and Mediaeval Europe Yes Yes Held by university libraries No Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Retsö, Jan (4 July 2003). The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads Yes Yes Held by university libraries No Nothing in the book at all about Adelle, just the Saracens in Italy. ✘ No
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia Yes ? Per WP:BRITANNICA, other sources are preferred. No Adelle is never mentioned. ✘ No
Ferraris, Z. A.; Ferraris, V. A. (December 1997). "The women of Salerno: contribution to the origins of surgery from medieval Italy" Yes Yes No Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
Kyle, Sarah R. (2016-08-12). Medicine and Humanism in Late Medieval Italy: The Carrara Herbal in Padua Yes Yes Held in university libraries No Never mentions Adelle ✘ No
The Biographical Dictionary of Women in Science Yes Yes Held in university libraries No Barely mentions her ✘ 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}}.
  • Delete. According to this (Italian version here), there was no Adelle. She comes from a late foundation myth for the Salernitan school. There were four founding doctors: the Greek Pontus, the Hebrew Helinus, the Saracen Adela and the Latin Salernus. In the paper linked, the tale is taken as allegory of knowledge converging from the four corners of the Earth on Salerno, an acknowledgement of the culturally and linguistically diverse origins of its medicine. She is mentioned twice at Schola Medica Salernitana as "Abdela", which is not correct, but reflects (I think) the idea that Adela/Adala is a corruption of an Arabic name like Abdul. Srnec (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Priti Adani

[edit]
Priti Adani (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 individual. Sources are merely about the statements she has made which are sourced to WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and she is only known for being the wife of Gautam Adani. See WP:INHERITED. Ratnahastin (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Şifa University

[edit]
Şifa University (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 can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Draftify: I found some sources (which appear to be secondary) see 1, 2 and 3. The article needs some improvement in general, but I don't think it should be deleted. SirBrahms (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    The page is 12 years old and has had no active editing. Draftify looks like backdoor deletion in this case. But the sources you have found are interesting. The first is a primary source: a Ph.D. thesis. Despite being a primary source, it could contain secondary information about the university, and provide something to write an article from, so I would not rule it out just for being apparently primary. The second source is a listing. That is not SIGCOV, definitely not at CORPDEPTH, and independence is questionable. The third source is the most important though. That tells us that the university was seized and closed down in 2016 following a failed military coup (it was an asset of those involved). The source is primary in that it is a news report, but presents a bit of a quandary. It shows that, on the one hand, the university no longer exists and only existed for six years. Based on that, it is unlikely this ever reached notability. On the other hand, the very event that caused it to close would appear to make something notable. I am leaning towards merge to somewhere, if there is a suitable target regarding the coup. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments! It may be viable to merge it into Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt (especially considering it hasn't had any active editing in so long (a thing I regrettably forgot to check)). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'd move to merge if it made sense. How would that look though? There were 15 universities closed in the purge, and none are currently named. Should they be listed? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'd say yes. I'm imagining something like this:
    • University one, Place, Exact reason for closure (if applicable)
    • etc.
    What do you think? Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    If we have the exact reason for each, sure. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - Further to my above comment, according to this page Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attempt, this was one of 15 universities shut down in the purges following the coup. It seems undue to add this one to that page. Yet if it is not even notable for a mention there, it is not notable for a page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

232d Medical Battalion

[edit]
232d Medical Battalion (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)

Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace. A WP:BEFORE search got mostly press releases. A subject specific notability guideline doesn't exist for military units/formations, and the article seems to not fulfill our general notability guidelines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 13:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Error message comes up on this AFD, as well "Do not use {{Draft article}} in mainspace". — Maile (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, — Maile ,
I don't see any problems with this AFD or the article and I don't know what draft article you are referring to. I've put "nowiki" tags around this template because it is interfering with discussion here. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 23:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, I just got that message again by trying to add. See first sentence of this nomination, "Unsourced article that got moved back from draftspace." But if no one else gets that, maybe I'll just avoid this article. — Maile (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Maile66 Hate to say this, but I'm not seeing any error messages, either. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. All the sourcing on the subject is the unit talking about itself. That is neither secondary nor independent. MILUNIT is not a notability guideline and so per WP:N has zero sway here. JoelleJay (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: I have expanded it a bit and added some sources as part of #NOV24 backlog drive. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    @TheBirdsShedTears, neither of the refs you added is independent, so what is the basis of your keep !vote? JoelleJay (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to assess TheBirdsShedTears' updates
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment - the added refs mentioned above do not appear to be independent. So I'm not sure those really count towards notability. I agree with the above that military units often are notable, but I'm not sure we can really !keep unless there is independent coverage in RS. JMWt (talk) 09:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
    The refs are definitely not independent and do not count towards notability whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge with 32nd Medical Brigade: where the lack of independent sourcing for the battalion would be less of a problem. Owen× ☎ 15:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    @OwenX This would be cheaper than deletion, certainly. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 16:43, 2 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]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Biosthmors/Things&oldid=1023540647"