Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting

Points of interest related to Medicine on Wikipedia
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup

Deletion Sorting
Project

Project page	(talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)

AfD: Today, Yesterday

edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Medicine. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Medicine}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Medicine.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine/archive.

Purge page cache

Watch this page

1 Medicine

[edit] Medicine

[edit] Naturopathic doctor

POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [1], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the degree exist? If so, could the article explain the problem of only certain states recognizing the degree? A²Kafir (and...?) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment If the degree exists, it may be pertinent information but some caveats must be given about the 11 US states that license naturaopathic doctors. If not delete. Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - The ND degree exists and allows the practitioner to be a primary care provider in some (apparently 11) US states. However, in other states, either there is no regulation (anyone can call themselves an ND), or it is completely illegal. There is such thing as Naturopathic medical school, which grants the ND degree. In the article, these points should all be clearly stated in the lead. I don't think this is a POV fork, since the degree exists, and it is different from naturopathy in other countries. However, the article should be moved to the more appropriate Doctor of Naturopathy. (A history merge should be performed after this Afd.) Also, depending on the aggressiveness and boldness of this article's authors, there is a high potential for controversy, similar to what goes on between the traditional medicine and chiropractic camps. Some previous editors tried to insert naturopathic medical education information in with traditional medical education, which has repeatedly been rejected by the traditional medical community. I think having separate naturopathic medicine articles is appropriate and the best solution. --Scott Alter 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
After reading Scott's comments, I change my vote to Keep with the caveats and changes discussed. There are genuine online references in the article. Its not a WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Just to get the number right, there are 15 states that license naturopathic doctors; the 14 listed in the NCAM link in Shoemaker's comment above, and Minnesota, which passed a licensing law in the past few weeks, for references see the naturopathy talk page under "Minnesota Licensure." Lamaybe (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - It might be repetitive to motion to keep an article that I wrote, but I'd like to respond to the criticism that this is a dangerous POV fork. I think the first points that Shoemaker raises above are great, that anyone can call themselves an ND in unlicensed states, and that only certain states and provinces in North America license NDs. The original article also describes those points. But then Shoemaker states that the article makes claims "that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional..." I don't see that claim, or even that implication, anywhere in the article. If this is a blind spot for me, please point it out! Lastly, this doesn't seem like a fork to me; it's describing a professional degree granted by accredited institutions, and recipients of that degree are licensed to be primary care providers in 15 states and 4 provinces! It struck me as being as worthy of an article as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Philosophy, or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which is, of course, why I wrote it. :) Lamaybe (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - Although I think that Shoemaker's Holiday's initial critique had merit, it seems clear that his or hers concerns have been addressed by the series of rewrites. I think also that people looking for general information on naturopathy will generally end up at Naturopathic medicine; readers who reach this page are likely looking for specific information about licensure and accreditation, and hence this article is of use and should not be merged. Eggsyntax (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep - legitimate, valid and useful. Kingturtle (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge with naturopathy. Duplication of content for no good reason. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I don't know how much or little I should chime in, according to wiki etiquette, but I think I found a description of the appropriateness of this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Related_articles I also read that in most circumstances, calling a new article a POV fork is itself considered POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#What_forking_is I'm not intending to slight anyone with this comment, I'm still relatively new at contributing to wikipedia, and I just wanted to share what I read. Lamaybe (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DVS: Dose verification system

The article, as written, reads like an advertisement for the product; I consider it unlikely to be salvageable. The subject of the article is a niche market tool for clinical radiation dosimetry. (Note that the article describes in detail how to obtain insurance reimbursement for the product, but offers scant comment on the device's operatation—even mention of the type of dosimeter employed is omitted.) While our dosimetry article could use expansion, per WP:NOTCATALOG there is no need for Wikipedia to be a catalog of dosimetry products and services.

The article was created by User:Smg2008, whose only contributions to Wikipedia have been the creation of this article and links to it from high traffic articles like breast cancer and prostate cancer (see Special:Contributions/96.234.60.75). This article was originally PRODded on 5 July; the PROD tag was removed today by the logged-out original author, so I'm bringing it here for further discussion. (In case of any ambiguity, I'll note for the closing admin that my not-vote is to delete this not-article.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment As it stands, it does read as an advert. However, a quick google search shows that it might be notable - it has been cleared for treatment. It's a shame that there are no notability guidelines for drugs and treatments (well, none that I can see). I would say though that any that are cleared for use on human patients, or trialled drugs/treatments that have received multiple secondary coverage should be notable. With a rewrite, it might make for a good article. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Additional comment Found this talking about DVS, but it isn't clear if it is the same product. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

- - I would comment that while the class of devices – implantable dosimeters – may warrant an article in the future, there just isn't enough to say about any particular one to justify a separate article on each. While we have articles on forceps and projectional radiography, we don't have articles on specific makes and models of tweezers or of x-ray machines—nor, per WP:NOTCATALOG, should we. With drugs, we maintain one article for each unique compound; we don't have an article for every generic copy. If someone were interested enough in the topic to write a short, general blurb in dosimetry, that would be superb. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
    - Sounds sensible. I !vote that the article is merged with dosimetry. StephenBuxton (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      - Could you be specific about what material there is in this article that might be worth merging? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        
        I will rework given the above comments and will post changes tomorrow. I disagree with DVS being featured on the dosimetry page of wikipedia as that description is dealing with external radiation measuring. Smg2008 —Preceding comment was added at 19:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
comment (to TenOafAllTrades) Most of what is in the article describing how it works is suitable, provided the info is sourced so it doesn't read as OR. Also, the information about being approved should be in there, as that helps prove its notability. However, the general information about cancer is just extra background information which is covered better in the main cancer articles. StephenBuxton (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Merge generic content with dosimetry, otherwise delete. JFW | T@lk 14:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Synaptogenomics

Google scholar gives three hits from the group that introduced the term (one of whom it appears wrote the article) and little evidence that the concept has received coverage elsewhere. A general Google search also does not indicate any widespread use of the term. I do not think that the concept (however valid) has received the kind of independent coverage from reliable secondary sources required to write a neutral encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Tending towards delete or merge to....what I am not sure - unless something surprises me. I'll notify WP:MED. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
delete per WP:NEO: This is a "protologism"; it is not widely used and the page appears to have been created to promote usage of a term. If the term catches on such that there is a field of research to describe here then a page would be justified, but otherwise not notable and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. :-) Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Any neologism with "-omics" is suspect. It just indicates the type of science where you fire a shotgun at a problem in expectation of some results. Not quite like Ernest Rutherford and his helium atoms through. But I digress. JFW | T@lk 22:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete, in PubMed two papers use this word, both from 2006 and both from the same authors. This is not a notable or widespread term. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete just because a group of genetic variations found, does not make it a branch of medicine (likewise no sub-branch of study of FlyBase for genetic variations affecting just the wings of Drosophila melanogaster - what I shall be the first and last to term "Drosophil-aero-genomics")
Delete as neologism with no apparent outside support. Ford MF (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified Daforerog (talk · contribs) of this AfD, also issues of WP:COI citing ones own sources.David Ruben ^Talk 20:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kerokan

Microstub, no information, no references. Creator is a banned sockpuppet. Garyseven (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - It could use some work, but with the laziest of googling I have found minor notability and references. It has been up long enough (since 12/07) that the sock-puppet aspect is moot. JohnnyMrNinja 03:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep - regardless of google - the practice of kerokan is a long standing practice by dukuns and other traditional health workers in Java in Indonesia - and it is a classic practice for curing afflcitcions such as a 'masuk angin' which although alien to non javanese - was and possiby still is a culturally bound syndrome - as for whether it was created by jimbo wales or a sock puppet - it is a notable cultural practice which could stand up to WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS without much trouble if the afd doesnt go through Satu Suro 14:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —JohnnyMrNinja 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep or, less ideally, merge into Gua Sha if appropriate. Notable practice, sources for expansion shouldn't be hard to find. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - Non-notable quack cure - one of many. Can't see what could possibly be added. Perhaps could be mentioned in Dukun or other relevant articles. Davidelit (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - prepared for merge with dukun - could be a good compromise - as to the the nature of the practice - have taken the issue up at the Indonesian Project noticeboard Satu Suro 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that this falls under WP:NOTNEWS. May be restored for selective merging. Sandstein 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 measles outbreak in California

A dozen cases over two months and no deaths. Made the local news, and attracted the CDC's attention (it is their job to look after such things), but not really notable in a lasting way. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Per WP:N, notability does not expire or go away after a certain amount of time. Happyme22 (talk) 07:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Notability doesn't expire, but sensationalism does. This event was sensational, but never notable. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete ~~and merge to MMR_vaccine_controversy#Disease_outbreaks.~~ This outbreak is just part of a pattern of undervaccination incidents. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Make that simply delete. At the risk of sounding slightly macabre, wait until we have an actual epidemic or some broader impact than just a flash in the pan. One article for 2008 all of the outbreaks might be interesting, but better would be a subarticle on frequency and distribution of outbreaks vs. vaccination and other public health initiatives. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep clearly of note historically, agree with everyking and happyme22Myheartinchile (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Delete unless we're also going to include the 2008 measles outbreak in Illinois, the 2008 measles outbreak in Arizona and the 2008 measles outbreak in Toronto. It appears that measles outbreaks are fairly common. Pburka (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Do they have significant press coverage like this one does? If so, you won't hear any objection from me. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  - They have as much or more press coverage than the California outbreak. That is to say, local news sources covered them for a few weeks and a couple of national sources pick it up. According to this there have been a dozen outbreaks in the US so far in 2008. It doesn't make sense to have an article about each one. It might make sense to have a single 2008 measles outbreaks in North America article as the number of outbreaks this year does seem to be unusual. Pburka (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    - They could be written about as one article. If we want to do that, the proper outcome is to keep this article and then move or redirect it into a new article with a broader scope. Everyking (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Last I heard, we can't delete and merge. It destroys the page histories. Singly, the measles epidemics <<obsolete term showing my age. much more pc to call an epidemic an outbreak.>> are not sufficiently notable and would be better redirected and merged into a single article, like Measles Outbreaks of 2008. Collectively and historically, measles outbreaks are significant and notable. We are fortunate in the lack of fatalities-- that will change. Cheers, and happy editing.

Dloh cierekim 15:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete --24 cases is not even close to an epidemic. This no doubt also applies to other measles outbreak articles. 49 years ago when I had it, measles was a common childhood disease. Since vaccination it has become rare. It needs something much larger scale to warrnat an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Interesting point, Peter. Technically, it is an ~~epidemic>~~ outbreak, though. Perhaps there is a greater notability involved here. Perhaps it's notable that these things happen at a time when the disease could possibly be eradicated with more thorough vaccicnation. (Don't want to open that can of worms, though.) I'm not the one with the skills to argue in favor of it if it does exist. As a side note, I alomost died of measles, so I greeted the development of the vaccine with exclamations of joy. But that's neither here nor there in the great scheme of things. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wafulz (talk) 14:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Peterkingiron and Pburka. Such outbreaks happen all the time. There is not sufficient evidence of this one being actually notable even if it was (sensationally) reported in the news. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete - it is articles like this one that make me wish our notability guidelines were revamped. The notion that something popping up once or twice in the news means we should have an article on it is absurd. There are many events that occur routinely and are not of any particular note, but local news outlets are bound to have a blurb on them all the same. Arkyan 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete I can't find a single blurb in any local news outlet about the 1347 bubonic outbreak in Genua in Google News Archives: [2]. Thus, non-notable. ¨23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Smerge into MMR vaccine controversy. Corvus cornix_talk 23:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete a textbook example of the application of WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete I think Phil, above, hit it on the nose. This is really a local news item. Such items can be notable, but I don't see a lot of evidence that this one is. Tim Ross (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete to my mind not notable and not encyclopedic. A short burst of media interest in an otherwise unimportant event that isn't really important or remotely unusual. RMHED (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.