Wikipedia

User:Biosthmors/Things

< User:Biosthmors
The Signpost
26 September 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 8 13
FM 74 74
GA 30 47 111 181 369
B 57 426 1,317 1,739 30 3,569
C 5 413 3,169 7,656 161 11,404
Start 136 4,601 17,827 1 371 22,936
Stub 1,605 9,996 489 12,090
List 22 267 563 16 868
Category 10,654 10,654
Disambig 172 172
File 479 479
Portal 540 540
Project 168 168
Redirect 438 803 5,909 7,150
Template 1,709 1,709
NA 5 9 14
Draft 7 288 295
Assessed 99 1,060 11,530 38,808 20,003 1,067 72,567
Unassessed 1 1 68 70
Total 99 1,060 11,531 38,809 20,003 1,135 72,637
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 244,287 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

(1 more...)

Proposed deletions

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(2 more...)

Featured article candidates

Featured list candidates

Good article nominees

(2 more...)

Articles to be merged

(14 more...)

Articles to be split

(6 more...)

Articles for creation

(26 more...)


Medicine

edit

Protein poisoning

edit
AfDs for this article:
Protein poisoning (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)

Poorly-sourced WP:POVFORK of Protein toxicity. The sources cited are reliable, but are misrepresented: Of the references I could access, none use the term "protein poisoning" (though one of the references cited by Ref. 1 does), and Ref. 1 directly contradicts the first paragraph by describing the exact mode of toxicity in the Protein toxicity article. I propose a redirect to Protein toxicity, which has far better sourcing and far less SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:43, 15 October 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)

Naoto Ueno

edit
Naoto Ueno (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 seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Weak delete. Obvious WP:COI issues, an argument could possibly be made for WP:NACADEMIC. There are a handful of in depth interviews in academic journals, director of the UH Cancer Center, and while the highest cited papers on Google Scholar are with many authors with the subject in the middle, there are quite a few papers for which he is the lead/corresponding author that are relatively highly cited for the age of the paper. I'm not convinced of the magnitude of impact of the scholarly work and independence/possible journalistic COI of interview coverage is not clear.
Cyanochic (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep, tentatively. He has 30,000 citations and an h-index of 84, but in a very high-citation field. However even ignoring the highly-cited consortia papers, he still has several impactful research articles as the last/corresponding author (top cites: 576, 342, 231) and as first author (223), not to mention a lot of reviews in those authorship positions (554, 538, 237, 208; 235), though I don't give these as much weight. I've collected some of the more in-depth secondary analyses of work attributed to him as first/senior author below, which might help demonstrate a stronger case for C1. These could also be used to make his research section more NPOV.
Secondary/independent analysis
  • ~60 words

    Clinical evidence of graft-versus-BC effect has been reported in a limited number of patients (2/10) by Ueno et al,2 and in one anecdotal case by Eibl et al.1 However, the study by Ueno et al was different from ours in that it included patients without progressive disease, adopted a myeloablative conditioning regimen with demonstrated antitumor activity, and performed DLI in only one case without response.

  • ~120 words

    Meanwhile, other researchers think that looking at the top of a signaling pathway doesn't make sense when what really counts is whether the cell is proliferating or not. For that reason, Naoto T. Ueno, M.D., Ph.D., [...] has looked at the activity of a key cell cycle regulator, CDK2, in sensitive and resistant tumor cell lines. They found a correlation between increasing resistance and increasing CDK2 kinase activity, which promotes cell cycling. The amount of protein or activity of proteins in the pathway steps between EGFR and CDK2 do not seem to be related to erlotinib sensitivity, according to Ueno's data. [quote]

  • ~160 words

    An update of experience at the MD Anderson Cancer Center with inflammatory breast cancer over the past 20 years was published by Ueno and colleagues [4]. [...] ... Ueno and colleagues found that 71% of all patients had a response to anthracycline-based induction chemotherapy, with 12% of patients achieving a complete response [4]. In addition, [...] (truncated to avoid CV)

  • ~120 words

    Experience at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center over the past 20 years was reported by Ueno et al. [87]. One hundred seventy patients [...]. ... The study by Ueno et al. also showed the importance of response to induction chemotherapy. [...]

  • ~50 words

    Ueno and colleagues reported that 74% of patients with IBC experienced a response from an anthracycline-based regimen, and 12% had a complete response. ... Many of the women in the review by Ueno and colleagues initially presented with inoperable disease. After induction chemotherapy, 95% of these patients were able to have surgery.

  • ~20 words

    Current treatment recommendations for IBC are multimodal with combination neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by mastectomy and then concluding with chemotherapy and radiation. This regimen is reported by Ueno et al. 10to show a [quote]

  • ~160 words

    In 2008 Ueno and colleagues published a retrospective analysis of 66 metastatic breast cancer patients, 39 of whom had undergone myeloablative HCT/AT between 1992 and 2000. Data were [...]. These initial experiences showed that an allotransplant-based approach could result in long-term disease control in metastatic breast cancer, but the rate of TRM was a serious drawback. ... In the already mentioned retrospective analysis conducted by Ueno and colleagues [42], 27 of the 66 patients [...]

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

    The first series of patients was reported by Ueno et al [6] from the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. Ten patients [...] ... The largest unpublished series was presented by Ueno and Niederwieser on behalf of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplantation Research (CIBMTR) [...]

  • ~45 words

    Erlotinib inhibits triple negative breast cancer as shown by Ueno and Zhang[30] when they generated a SUM149 xenograft model by implanting luciferase expressing SUM149 cells into mammary pads of athymic nude mice. The results indicated significant inhibition of tumour growth at doses of 50 and 100 mg/kg.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Clear Keep -- As @JoelleJay has noted, the nominator's notability guidelines omit the most relevant, WP:PROF (a notability criteria that predates and is independent of WP:N) where it is clear that Ueno is clearly more accomplished and notable than the average professor. Full-professor, head of a major NIH research program, at an R1 University, with significant third-party coverage of the appointment: ASCO-Post is the publication of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, so their coverage is very relevant. As far as the actual citation numbers, these vary from field to field hugely, but I can't remember a researcher in any field with an h-index of 84 or above ever being deleted -- medicine is a high pub. + high citation field, so the numbers need to be much higher than say Estonian studies, but my experience is that borderline is usually 30-50 in that field.
The article was probably created too early: the notability tags from 2011 were probably correct and I would have likely been on the delete side then, but much has changed since then and regardless of past COI or other mistakes, now the subject of the article is notable; thus keep. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 10:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google scholar has him with an h-factor of 105. He is still active, I counted 39 publications in 2024. While this may be a high citation field, and many of these papers have multiple authors, I feel he passes #C1 of WP:NPROF. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Shibu Chacko

edit
Shibu Chacko (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)

Chacko's claim to notability is that he was one of the 399 people who received a MBE in 2019, the lowest grade of all five Order of the British Empire awards that were given to a total of 1,073 people in the same year. He received some coverage for that by some newspapers in 2019, but the coverage was not WP:SUSTAINED.

Clearly, this is not the type of award that makes someone notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, and I doubt that all other 1,072 mostly ordinary British citizens (list) who received the same general-purpose award or better in the same year are also notable. Badbluebus (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, India, and United Kingdom. Badbluebus (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Kerala and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Little sign of SNGs. As far as GNG, there is some press coverage, all around the MBE. While some of it goes into a bit of detail, I think this still falls under WP:BLP1E. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
    I note that the article originator has been blocked for sock puppetry. Enough other editors have worked on the article that I think it's a little unlikely that it qualifies for G5 speedy deletion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete with a little regret. Subject has clearly done good work encouraging people to sign up as organ donors, but the only coverage which profiles him is triggered by the award of an MBE, mainly in local, trade and community press/media, which routinely mines the awards for anyone in their locality/trade/community. We don't have independent coverage before or since, which we normally see for notable persons ("notable" in the Wikipedia sense). The MBE itself can't confer notability automatically; as noted above, it's the lowest state honour in the UK, and it is also the commonest, with 9,518 awards from December 2014 to June 2024 (total of "All - Including Unknown" for MBEs in downloadable spreadsheet). Personally, I thank Shibu Chacko for their achievement and hope this will later seem merely the start of a long and fruitful career. NebY (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
    Standing for Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, MBE is the third highest ranking Order of the British Empire level (excluding a knighthood/damehood), behind CBE and then OBE. Not the lowest state of Honour in the UK as claimed in this section. See reference below
    https://www.thegazette.co.uk/awards-and-accreditation/content/103372 Shinomol (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    It's the third highest out of three. The lowest. As shown on the Gazette page you linked. Your assertion that Not the lowest state of Honour in the UK (sic) is contrary to the very source you just provided. All this is doing is reinforcing the point that this person does not as yet meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. You have convinced me that there'll be no point in my spending more time on this. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I would suggest you do your research first before making false claims. BEM is the lowest rank, not MBE . Sorry this is my last message to your malicious attempts to take this page down. I am not willing to waste my valuable time by engaging with these kinds of individuals at all; I have got patients to look after. Defending this page is not my priority. Best wishes for all your continued efforts. (Malicious obviously) Shinomol (talk) 19:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: After analyzing the entry and reading all the references, I agree that he passes GNG. More than enough news coverage suggested above and at the article, I'm convinced the person is notable and worth keeping on Wikipedia.  I assess as probably reliable, covering multiple events / aspects of this WP:BLP. Keep, monitor for neutrality and overdetail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.200.34 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC) — 119.155.200.34 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: The process for nominating someone to receive an MBE is a very complex process and can take upto 2 years. The government and the various departments will go through rigorous checking during this process. All nominees will be checked by various government departments to make sure they’re suitable for an honour. I can see Chacko has gone through this process and received the honour. He is the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor, and he is the first Indian to work as a Donor Ambassador in the UK as well. The course he created is already completed by over 9000 individuals from all over the world. So I certainly recommend keeping this page live in view of the special achievements Chacko has gained. He is true inspiration to all the South Indians in the UK in terms of professional growth in Nursing, Research, Career Guidance and inservice education. Best wishes Mr Chacko Shinomol (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC) — Shinomol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    Nominating someone for an MBE is not a very complex process at all - start here. One of our sources says he "will become the youngest Malayalee ever to receive an MBE (Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) from the Queen",[20] which is a long way from being the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor. "Donor ambassador" is a term recently invented for health workers who encourage other people to sign up as donors; it doesn't have any particular distinction. NebY (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Certainly agree with you; any one can make a nomination. But one certainly need to understand the process after receiving the nomination. Its a through process by the UK government, not all tom dick and harry will get through the process. You can refer to the process followed by the UK government here. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/how-the-honours-system-works
    I can certainly feel your attitude towards a healthcare worker in your last sentence. Being a healthcare worker, I can certainly understand the value of such titles such as donor ambassadors, because they really make a real difference to several peoples lives. One should be in their shoes to understand the value of the work healthcare workers do especially in organ donation and transplantation as they work with real life scenarios everyday - life and death on a daily basis. It may not have any particular value, importance or distinction for lay people who doesnt have any medical knowledge or understand what is going on behind scenes. Shinomol (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Further re the first South Indian in UK to receive this honor: we have, for example, articles on M. V. Narasimha Rao and S. Muthiah, neither one relying on their MBEs for notability. NebY (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    In response to the comment, it's important to clarify that while M. V. Narasimha Rao and S. Muthiah do not rely on their MBEs for notability, their achievements and contributions in other significant areas—such as sports and writing—elevate their prominence, with the MBE serving as an additional recognition of their impact. In the case of the individual under discussion, being the first South Indian to receive an MBE in the UK holds unique professional, and cultural significance. This milestone could be considered a notable achievement in itself, given its contribution to the UK healthcare especially organ donation and transplantation.
    The individual's distinction as the first South Indian recipient of this honor may highlight not only personal achievements but also wider societal progress, particularly in the context of Organ Donation awareness and the role played in the educational campaigns. Thus, while an MBE alone may not confer automatic notability, the social and healthcare context and pioneering nature of this honor for a particular community could be a valid factor in establishing the subject's notability for a Wikipedia entry. Shinomol (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see no evidence that Shibu Chacko was the first South Indian recipient of this honor. NebY (talk) 15:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    You could rephrase this to first Malayalee if that claim is too broad. Shinomol (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I see no evidence that Shibu Chacko was the first Malayalee. NebY (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Can you share any other malayalees names? Shinomol (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Right. You're making claims that you can't substantiate. I see no point in discussing this further. NebY (talk) 16:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I am also disinclined to continue this conversation with you. If you assert that Shibu Chacko is not the first Malayalee to receive the MBE honours, it is essential that you provide evidence to substantiate this claim, rather than diminishing my argument and avoiding further discussion. Shinomol (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Past consensus in AfD discussions has generally been that an MBE does not suffice for notability, although of course it also does not prevent notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that an MBE alone may not automatically meet the threshold for notability under Wikipedia guidelines. However, it is important to consider that while an MBE itself does not confer notability, it can be an indicator of broader achievements and public impact on healthcare outcomes, especially when coupled with significant contributions in other fields such as training, volunteering and organ donation campaigns. Thank you Shinomol (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Shinomol is a confirmed sock of Shibuchakson, who declared here to have a conflict of interest regarding the subject of this AfD. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Monophile. Badbluebus (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Shinomol is not acting for Mr Chacko nor a proxy for anyone. I know Mr Chacko professionally as a Organ Donation Coordinator in my role as a senior nurse in intensive care. I was fortunate to work with Mr Chacko while facilitating several organ doantion operations and attended the classes organised by him as well. You can verify my identity through nhs credentials if required. I am unable to share those here. Shinomol (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: He meets WP:BASIC He was awarded a MBE in the Queen's Birthday Honours list for the work he did with the promotion of organ donation among the minority communities in the UK, he being accorded the MBE recognition for his services within the NHS Trusts in the United Kingdom. He also has reliable coverages for verifiability some of which are 123456 Isha Sattar (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    User Isha Sattar only has 18 edits and previously !voted keep at the AfD of an article created by Monophile, the same sockpuppet of Zimidar that created Shibu Chacko. Just like Jxggii and Fayyazwill, their first edits on Wikipedia were related to redirect requests. Badbluebus (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With only the weak deletes from experienced editors, I think we need more discussion. I have semi'ed the page to allow for that
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only coverage seems to be about the MBE, and there are thousands of recent recipients. Simply having a popular course and an award is not grounds for an article, however interesting the story may be - this makes it arguably WP:NSUSTAINED. If it is true that he is the first south Indian to recieve this award then my decision would instead be a weak keep, but as a user above noted, there is no evidence for this. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 07:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. This page on the subject is surrounded by sources on MBE WP:BLP1E but numerous have got this award. This one time award I do not believe is significant enough to warrant a page on the subject. If there is something more worthy of notice with sources with significant coverage on the subject, I would reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: The process for nominating an individual for an MBE (Member of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire) is highly complex and can take up to two years. This involves thorough and rigorous scrutiny by various governmental departments to ensure that all nominees are suitable for such an honour. It is evident that Dr. Shibu Chacko has successfully undergone this process and received the prestigious award. Notably, he is the first Keralite in the UK to be honoured in this way and the first Indian to serve as a Donor Ambassador in the UK Healthcare and still working. The course he designed is endorsed by the Royal College of Surgeons and Department of Health, which has already been completed by over 8500 individuals from around the world, further demonstrates his significant contributions to education and healthcare. In light of these exceptional achievements, I strongly recommend retaining this Wikipedia page. Dr. Chacko serves as a true inspiration to South Indians in the UK, particularly in the areas of professional advancement in nursing, research, career guidance, and in-service education. He remains actively engaged in organ donation campaigns and leads the charity Donate Life UK, making him a prominent and influential figure in this field. https://www.facebook.com/DLIFEUK/ Shinomol (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Shinomol (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.
  • Delete. There is no consensus that an MBE constitutes a WP:ANYBIO-eligible award, and that's the only thing that the subject has received any coverage for, making it a case of WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Pu Zhongjie

edit
Pu Zhongjie (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)

Declined prod. Prod was removed with a source that is a 1 line mention of Pu. Created by a single purpose editor. Google news has a mere 2 hits. Would reconsider if significant coverage can be found in Chinese. LibStar (talk) 02:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:

    People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

    • If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "Pu Zhongjie". China Daily. 2012-02-28. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01.

      The article notes: "Pu Zhongjie, born in 1963, is a doctoral degree holder and has obtained the permanent residence permit of the United States. Dr. Pu founded Lepu Group Co Ltd in 1998 and serves as the chairman of the Board and General Manager. ... Dr. Pu is the director of the Chinese Society of Biotechnology (CSBT), vice president of the Interventional Engineering Committee of CSBT and the member of the Changping CPPCC committee."

    2. Li, Yihe 李奕和 (2022-10-31). "乐普系分拆心泰医疗IPO，蒲忠杰难以摆脱"自家生意"，依赖关联交易，增收不增利，上半年纯利下降42%" [The spin-off of Lepu's subsidiary, Xintai Medical, for its IPO sees Pu Zhongjie struggling to break free from "family business" ties, relying on related transactions. While revenue has increased, profits have not, with a 42% decline in net profit in the first half of the year.]. 乐居财经 [Leju Caijing] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "从校服到婚纱，蒲忠杰和妻子张月娥不仅是生意场上最得意的合作伙伴，二者还是同窗校友。蒲忠杰毕业于西安交通大学金属材料专业，在校期间结识了同专业的张月娥，此后结成连理。1999年6月，已获博士学位的蒲忠杰在国外求学期间接触了心脏支架研发的工作后，毅然回国，与妻子张月娥创立了乐普医疗。2009年，乐普医疗作为首批28家公司之一，登陆创业板，一举成为A股“心血管第一股”。"

      From Google Translate: "From school uniforms to wedding dresses, Pu Zhongjie and his wife Zhang Yue'e are not only the most proud partners in the business world, but also classmates. Pu Zhongjie graduated from Xi'an Jiaotong University with a degree in metal materials. During his time at school, he met Zhang Yue'e, who was also a student in the same major, and they later got married. In June 1999, after Pu Zhongjie, who had obtained a doctorate degree, came into contact with the research and development of heart stents while studying abroad, he resolutely returned to China and founded Lepu Medical with his wife Zhang Yue'e. In 2009, Lepu Medical was listed on the Growth Enterprise Market as one of the first 28 companies, becoming the "first cardiovascular stock" in the A-share market."

    3. "创业板被指为"造富机器" 年产亿万富豪500位" [The ChiNext board is labeled a "wealth creation machine," producing 500 billionaires annually.]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). 2010-10-26. Archived from the original on 2024-10-01. Retrieved 2024-10-01 – via China News Service.

      The article notes: "蒲忠杰 1963年出生。乐普医疗总经理。持股市值：66.40亿元。历任北京钢铁研究总院高级工程师，美国佛罗里达国际大学研究助理，美国WP医疗科技公司技术副总经理。他曾参与设计50余项专利，并发表15篇科研文章。1998年，蒲忠杰创办乐蒲集团。与其他创业板富豪榜相比，蒲忠杰是唯一的非实际控制人富豪，纯属“技术投资”。"

      From Google Translate: "Pu Zhongjie was born in 1963. He is the general manager of Lepu Medical. Shareholding value: 6.64 billion yuan. He served as a senior engineer at the Beijing Iron and Steel Research Institute, a research assistant at Florida International University, and the technical deputy general manager of WP Medical Technology Company in the United States. He has participated in the design of more than 50 patents and published 15 scientific research articles. In 1998, Pu Zhongjie founded Lepu Group. Compared with other GEM rich lists, Pu Zhongjie is the only rich man who is not the actual controller, and is purely a "technical investment"."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Pu Zhongjie (Chinese: 蒲忠杰) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

    China Daily isn't a RS, I wouldn't count most of those, they seem to be regurgitated Communist Party news items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 08:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Still a delete. Even with the Cunard sources, they still don't have coverage in RS... China Daily is the mouthpiece of the CCP, and most of those given below appear to rehash the same "press release" for lack of a better term. I don't much else we can use for sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    • The sources were published in 2010, 2012, and 2022. How do sources published years apart rehash the "same press release"? What press release are you referring to? I did not find any such press releases. Regarding the China Daily article, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 332#RfC: China Daily was closed as (bolding added for emphasis):

      In this RfC, the community assesses the China Daily. The discussion below contains a lot of detail and nuance that doesn't lend itself to a pithy summary and, when future editors are making a tricky decision about the use of this source, they are encouraged to read the debate in full. There is much disagreement, and I am confident that if there were better sources for China, then the China Daily would be deprecated entirely; but a narrow majority of the community, just about amounting to a rough consensus, feels that there are so few good sources for China that it's needful for us to lower our bar. The community concludes that the China Daily may be used, cautiously and on the basis of good editorial judgment, as a source for the position of the Chinese authorities and the Chinese Communist Party; as a source for the position of the China Daily itself; as a source for facts about non-political events in mainland China, while noting that (a) the China Daily's interpretation of those facts is likely to contain political spin, and (b) the fact that the China Daily doesn't report something doesn't mean it didn't happen; and, with great caution, as a supplementary source for facts about political events of mainland China (supplementary meaning that the China Daily shouldn't normally be the sole source for these things). Editors agree that when using this source, context matters a great deal and the facts should be separated from the China Daily's view about those facts. It would be best practice to use plenty of in-text attribution as well as inline references when sourcing content to the China Daily.

      This is similar to the consensus at WP:XINHUA, which says, "There is consensus that Xinhua News Agency is generally reliable for factual reporting except in areas where the Government of China may have a reason to use it for propaganda or disinformation."

      Pu Zhongjie is not a political topic so the China Daily source is suficiently reliable for factual reporting about him. Cunard (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

      It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes. I'd prefer better sourcing before changing my !vote. You've got 5 marginal sources, if we had one or two RS and these, it would be different. Oaktree b (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
      There are no articles about this Doctor in Gscholar either, I'd expect something if we want to establish medical notability... Otherwise, this is a business person. And 849th richest person isn't notable. Head of a biomedical company could be notable, but the company doesn't seem to be. Having worked in the US isn't terribly notable, the rest is confirmation of how me met his wife, where he went to school. That's simply biographical, not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
      Regarding "It's more than likely propaganda, they're trying to hype up the individual for commercial purposes", there is no commercial incentive for the China Daily, The Beijing News, or Leju Caijing to "hype up" Pu Zhongjie. These three sources are all independent of him and his company. As one editor wrote at a Xinhua RSN discussion (my bolding; the numbering is based on the legend here):

      Option 1-2 in general; Option 1 for establishing notability; Option 3 for politics and international relations. I think Xinhua is most problematic when discussing political matters, and any instance of it should be attributed (if used at all). However, given that all mainstream media in mainland China is CCP-influenced, declaring all of them unreliable would have the effect of requiring subjects from China to receive significant coverage using only international sources to be considered notable, leading to systematic bias. As long as it's not making any exceptional or controversial claims, I think Xinhua is reliable for domestic non-political reporting.

      All domestic mainstream media sources in mainland China are influenced by the Chinese Communist Party. There would be significant systemic bias if influential domestic publications like the China Daily and The Beijing News are not considered sufficiently reliable to establish notability.

      The subject does not derive his notability from having a doctorate, from medical notability, from being one of the "richest" people, from being head of a biomedical company, or from having worked in the US.

      The subject derives his notability from passing Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."

      The sources cover not just his business career but also his personal life. This bolsters his notability as it shows the sources thought it was important to cover different facets of his life. The significant coverage allows the subject to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. No policy or guideline excludes content "that's simply biographical, not notable" from contributing to significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

      But I'm not sure why he's notable. 800th richest person isn't that. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
      800th richest person isn't that. No one has supported retention based on Pu Zhongjie's ranking on the richest persons list.

      But I'm not sure why he's notable. He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

      He is notable for passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria through receiving significant coverage in sufficiently reliable sources.. That is the objective of the AfD, to determine it meets that, so no need to requote guidelines that experienced editors know. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
      I requoted the appropriate notability guidelines to follow because one AfD participant supported deletion on the basis of this businessperson not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) while another AfD participant asked "I'm not sure why he is notable". Cunard (talk) 23:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable, and this topic received significant coverage, as found by User:Cunard. In my opinion, China Daily is not reliable for political reports, but it can be reliable for other topics. It seems like some users are trying to invoke WP:IDONTLIKE. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Chughtai Lab

edit
Chughtai Lab (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:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
    Here's the analysis of those three references:
    1. It is about a corporate partnership, marked as "BR Web Desk", no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV.
    2. Not directly about the company, but about a vaccine. Full of quotes, Chughtai said this and that.
    3. Again, MOU, a press release style article with no proper byline. Comes under WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: It seems notable enough as the lab was also embroiled in a sort of a political controversy (see: Dawn). Mister Banker (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far the deletion argument is the more compelling, but hasn't had much support outside the nominator. Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: The lab is prominent, but we rely on NORG to determine which articles to keep, but it doesn’t seem to be the case here. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Per nom. While a major lab has not much notability for an article. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Biosthmors/Things&oldid=1023540647"