Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine

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. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not 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. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

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. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Medicine|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Medicine. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

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.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Medicine

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. Sandstein 21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metaplacebo

Neologism, completely original research with conflict of interest from the creator. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Delete as a nn neologism. JJL (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides being COI, it also fails to meet WP:V, as seen on the talk page, were a search finds no articles or secondary cites of this so called "new" term. Medicellis (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:NEO. Lets get a some more deletes in here and through some snowballs.--Pmedema (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. JFW | T@lk 05:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:OR, per WP:V, per WP:RS, per WP:NEO, per WP:BAD, per WP:DUCK ..... LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I forgot, per WP:COI. I think I got 'em all now. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or transfer to wikitionary The source article has a DOI to Medical Hypotheses, a peer-reviewed journal. The terms metaplacebo (or meta-placebo) do appear to be in use, though only in a specialist field. Wikipedia / Wikitionary need to cover such topics. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: although Medical Hypotheses is indeed a peer-reviewed journal, it contains hypotheses, which in this case are basically opinions without evidence supporting them. For example, you'll find "evidence" in this journal that constipation is caused by defecation in a non-squatting position. PMID 2927355 . --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses is not a peer-reviewed journal. See publisher's website. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting point, Tim. I had previously looked at the text "The section "Articles in Press" contains peer reviewed accepted articles to be published in this journal." (in [1]. However, this is probably just a Science Direct standard footer of some sort. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles undergo "editorial review". From my experience of this in other journals I'd say the journal editor deals mostly with style and comprehensibility. Peer review on the other hand deals with accuracy and importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Speedy delete by Athaenara , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Creepseed

Possible hoax, no (online) references (maybe this should be checked via Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange?). If it turns out to be a hoax, the image should probably nominated for deletion on Commons too. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 00:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Delete absolutely a hoax. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ditto the hoax vote. Note that he's got his own Wordpress site created the same day as this article, which contains the exact same text, and exactly one other ghit, which appears to be a blog posting promoting the wordpress site. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Article is a writen story that is at http://creepseed.wordpress.com/ and is a copyvio. So tagged.--Pmedema (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear which came first. I wouldn't call it a clear Copyvio. Frankly, I suspect the author(s) of both articles are the same person(s). Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 judicious merge to Emergency medical services. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of emergency medical assistance

Delete Article does not meet Wikis WP:N or WP:V as this article has no cites/references, there is no way for one to added ref/cites due to this whole article being of personal opinion Medicellis (talk) 15:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note also can be merged into Emergency medical services in a small cat. but needs alot of help even for that Medicellis (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 15:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Perhaps some part of it can be merged. However, most of it seems to be unreferenced OR combined with links to other existing articles, with some uneven statements about history and the practices of a few foreign countries. Further, the material is only loosely linked to the title "Organization of emergency medical assistance" —Mattisse (Talk) 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what is useful: things like scoop and run vs stay and play are definitely notable and verifiable, but they belong in the EMS article. How much work would be involved is irrelevant in an AfD debate. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I would disagree that "scoop and run" and "stay and play" are WP:V or even WP:N. The only place I have ever heard these mentioned are as "teaching tools" from EMS educators. And loose ref. are made in course such ITLS (Internatonal Trauma Life Support)[2] and PreHospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS)[3]. But YOU WOULD be hard pressed (if not pretty impossible) to get verifiable sources were this is included in EMT curriculum. I'm may say to my partner hey this is a "load and go" or "we are gonna treat this with diesel" But this is no way a widely used figure of speech or even notable. Medicellis (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly this is a notable controversy for which references exist. I have several medical textbooks mentioning it, and you'll find it in many scientific articles as well (see Google Scholar). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, I had not seen many of those articles, and makes for interesting reading. But as it stands, this page would be much better merged into the already well written Emergency medical service. Medicellis (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep information. The information under "Organization in different countries" is clearly both notable and verifiable (although unsourced at the moment). Whether it's kept in its present form or merged or turned into a list, or split into many individual articles for each country is of no importance to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Not much of the information in this article needs to be merged, mabe the "scoop and run" and "stay and play" aspects. But most of the information is present in other articles, Paramedics in Germany, Paramedics in Canada, and as you can see the page Paramedic has a section on different countries. As you can see this page is very redundent in 90% of it's information, as well as being present else were in wiki. Medicellis (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In present form not suitable for inclusion. Much content is already present elsewhere. JFW | T@lk 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant to Category:Emergency medical services by country. Although Articles and Cats can co-exist, this particular one does not implement it well. Furthermore; I do not feel that continued editing of this document will result in an acceptable version, unfortunately. Either Delete (without prejudice) or a complete re-write is required. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable content to the EMS article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge where appropriate. Phasmatisnox (talk) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paediatric Nursing

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and the this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, published by the Royal College of Nursing, listed in PubMed and one of the top journals in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Inadequate article, but acceptable as a stub. The journal is an established journal, published in print since 1988, with a circulation of over 9000, according to Ulrich's, the standard source for such data. It is published by the leading UK scientific society in the field, and is published for the soiety RCN Publishingh, a division of the extremely prestigious international scientific publishers BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, the publishers of BMJ. It is included in the standard indexes: Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Scopus. It is available online for 1999+ or 2000+ issues from all three standard service, Proquest, Ebsco, and Thomson Gale. Articles are available from CISTI, the British Library, Information Express, Infotrieve, and IngentaConnect. This is a mainstream journal of obvious notability. To clarify the notability, I have added the above information to the article. I hope someone will soon add the journals infobox, the name of the editor in chief, and similar information. DGG (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above two. II | (t - c) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for a major peer-reviewed journal, and encourage the proposer in the future to do at least minimal research before bringing a dozen and a half newly created and referenced stubs to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable in its field. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other editors have done a good job of showing notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but expand. We need an open discussion as to whether all medical journals are automatically notable. JFW | T@lk 05:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic & Osteopathy

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[4] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet another legitimate journal stub. --Itub (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. Medicellis (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep(non-admin closure) The only delete votes aside from the nominator argue that the article should be redirected until someone comes along and expands the article, I shall go do that! -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 04:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BMC Health Services Research

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[5] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BMC journals until someone has time to write a more detailed article. Again, this is something that the proposer could have done, if he had taken a few seconds to do a little research before hitting the AfD button. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per whatamIdoing, again research is key!! Medicellis (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and expanded the stub a bit, with an infobox and some links. It's still a very basic stub, but at least it's more on a par with other medical journal stubs now. --El on ka 22:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listed on both PubMed and ISI. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Publications in the journal have been cited by mainstream media outlets, and whatever this is. PubMed also lists the journal as having nearly 700 citations from other indexed journals, which seems pretty decent to me for being around only seven years. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listing in ISI is generally accepted as a sufficient indication of notability for journals in the sciences. DGG (talk)

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Clinical Journal of Pain

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[6] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's peer-reviewed and "highly ranked in the field (ISI, Anesthesiology)". (Effort needed to find this information: one Google search, two clicks.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Pharmaceutical Design

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Listed in PubMed, highly-ranked in its field. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[7] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's "The number 1 journal for reviews in drug design and discovery" (emphasis on reviews: by other measures, it's "just" in the top 10%), significant circulation, indexed in more than a dozen major scholarly search systems. Again, this information is easy to find, if the proposer could have been bothered to make any effort at all to improve the article instead of just bringing it to AfD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned, a very well known peer reviewed journal that passes WP:N and WP:V. and like whataIdoing stated, DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE ADDED A BUNCH OF STUBS for deletion!!!! Medicellis (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with additions - As someone who's read and cited this journal many times, I can attest to its popularity. All of the above users have demonstrated its notability from credible sources. I'll also throw in my own source: the Journal Citation Reports, available from the ISI's Web of Knowledge database. That said, some of this information needs to incorporated into the article ASAP; otherwise, this'll be an AfD again in no time. —Skittleys (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stub has been expanded, with infobox and image. --El on ka 04:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[8] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ratings easy to find right here. Ranked 6 out of 26 journals for "Social sciences, biomedical", mid-level in other relevant fields. Abstracted or indexed by almost 20 search services. Smallish (quarterly) journal, less than ten years old. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Chiropractic Education

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[9] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD Medicellis (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europa Medicophysica

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[10] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's in scopus and Excerpta Medica as well as Medline, though Ulrich's shows only 3000 circulation It needs to be moved to the current title and ISSN: European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: Mediterranean journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine ISSN 1827-1804DGG (talk) 03:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and note that the name change is announced at PMID 18385638. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG, Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The four articles/editorials about the same journal listed as related articles at WhatamIdoing's PMID should give plenty of reliable material for a full article despite their lack of independence from the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, can with 5 mins be expanded Medicellis (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 07:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Pain and Symptom Management

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this journal has been established since 1986, is published by Elsevier (which is a major journal press) and is listed on PubMed. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[11] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to excellent ranking for a special-topic journal (top quarter of all "medicine" journals, for example). Published by Elsevier. Indexed pratically everywhere. Read the publisher's information for yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Tim Vickers, Elonka, WhatamIdoing. Edward321 (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Bold keep, while the article still needs to be improved, notability has clearly been established. Will tag for improvement. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[12] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Official Journal of the Australian Physiotherapy Association, been published for more than five decades, free access to all but the most recent four issues. Print edition has a circulation of 12,000 copies. Second in the world among general physiotherapy journals. Listed in 15 indices around the world. This one is perfectly obvious to anyone who has access to Google. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no assertion of notability is not a valid reason for deletion. Journal is quite clearly notable as noted by users above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headache (journal)

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[13] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my comments on the other journals in this group of ill-advised deletion nominations. DGG (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Not only do I agree with DGG's characterization of these nominations as "ill-advised", I think we should probably close many of these now as keep, without spending a lot more time on "proving" something that's so obvious. We're not improving the encyclopedia by wasting so much time on bureaucracy here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, and AGAIN I agree we should be closing most if NOT all of them Medicellis (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scoliosis (journal)

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[14] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to BMC journals until there's time to expand it. Full text in PubMed Central, other archives, working on ISI inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, needs to be expanded Medicellis (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this one-line article sourced only to its subject makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[15] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expanded per above Medicellis (talk) 17:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best Practice & Research: Clinical Rheumatology

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this one-line article sourced only to its subject makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[16] The stub was just created a day or two ago, I recommend giving it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as my comments on the other journals in this group of ill-advised deletion nominations. DGG (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these afd's Medicellis (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Research & Management

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced short article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears to be a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[17] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Elonka. II | (t - c) 01:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep and improve. The articles were made in a rush to flesh out red links. The editor who made them should not be blamed for trying to upgrade the links, which is a worthwhile enterprise, but I do wish he had provided a little more material to start out with. DGG (talk) 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Elonka, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obvious to anyone who either knows the field or does any basic research. Support closing these AfDs promptly per WP:SNOW. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine: eCAM

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal that is listed in the PubMed database.[18] The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --El on ka 21:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published by Oxford, covered in the Thomson's ISI database. It should be expanded, I agree. I'm strapped for time right now or I would. II | (t - c) 01:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the above--being in ISI , a very selective database, is good evidence enough for notability. I'll join Imperfectly informed in trying to get these articles up to standard. I would strongly suggest that someone do a rapid close of the batch of nominations. DGG (talk) 02:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nom. Edward321 (talk) 04:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW Medicellis (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars in Integrative Medicine

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article about a defunct journal that lasted only 2 years makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is was a legitimate peer-reviewed medical journal ~~that is listed in the PubMed database.[19]~~ The stub was just created a day or two ago, let's give it some time to flesh out. --Elonka 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Updated comment, apologies for the misinformation, I got carried away with the copy/pastes. -El on ka 18:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Elonka, this is a premature nomination for deletion.
- Delete. On second thought, it is discontinued. Two years is not long enough for notability. II | (t - c) 01:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete discontinued journal, WOW THE FIRST ONE TO have actually support of a REAL AfD!!! Medicellis (talk) 17:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not around long enough to be important. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Contrary to Fabrictramp's comment, this does NOT exist in PubMed. I tried through the link she cited above, as well as using multiple other methods including viewing the full list of journals. It is not there. I also haven't found it in any other major journal or research databases. As far as I can tell—I didn't go checking out every article—not one of its articles has ever been cited in any other publication. This all screams "Delete me!" Skittleys (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have expanded the stub, with an infobox, image, and links. I understand that it is a discontinued journal, but I still feel that it is useful to maintain a Wikipedia article on it, as it was a peer-reviewed journal (it was already listed at "Missing Journals"). Further, this journal is being used as a source in other Wikipedia articles,[20] and having a stub gives easy access to the journal's archives, which assists with verification. --El on ka 18:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain One of the standards for the notability of a journal is its length of publication. a new journal can be notable if obviously important, and a discontinued one if notable enough in its lifetime. But very few journals of this sort introduced by major publishers are discontinued as quickly as this, so it is an indication that nobody much cared to subscribe. As medic DGG (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that there was limited impact. However, it is still used as a source in various Wikipedia articles, and elsewhere in academia. I noticed one article that was cited in over a hundred different locations, according to Google Scholar.[21] --El on ka 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Chiropractic

Delete medical journals are not inherently notable and this unsourced one-line article about a web-only one makes no assertion of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Note: Several other journals follow, I am not grouping them as each stays or goes on its own notability vel non, but note any publication can call itself a medical journal, some among these are not peer reviewed, some are web-only, some defunct and some suffer several of these deficiencies - Yahoo and other online spaces have numerous groups devoted to talking and blogging about various hospitals, conditions, diseases, or medical care generally - just search for "autism", "cancer", or even "constipation"; those spaces aren't notable and either necessarily are the for-profit versions of the same... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no strong opinion on whether Dynamic Chiropractic is or isn't notable, but I am very interested in this discussion. We use articles from this publication for sourcing articles on Wikipedia, such as at Chiropractic. But the question is, does Dynamic Chiropractic count as a reliable source? Regardless of whether or not it is notable, should we be using it at all? I look forward to opinions on this. --El on ka 21:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elonka, that's really a discussion for the RS noticeboard not an AfD. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tim. :) And yes, RSN is a better venue, but I'm also curious about the notability factor. Considering your own expertise, I'm very much looking forward to your own opinion on this particular periodical. :) --El on ka 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never read it, never cited it I'm afraid. It's not in my area. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, and have cited it. It may not meet WP:MEDRS, but for the claims it is used for, it shouldn't have to. However, that doesn't mean that I agree (or disagree) with any notability claims. A reference CAN be reliable without being notable, can't it? DigitalC (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can; a map, an atlas, an almanac, a court docket, local newspaper, local telephone directory, most non-fiction books, articles, and journals fall into reliable sans notabiity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For the record, Dynamic Chiropractic is not web-only, as stated by the nominator.[22] DigitalC (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 60,000 subscribers appears fairly substantial. Let's give this one a little more time to be fleshed out as well. II | (t - c) 01:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a trade magazine not a journal. And a rather largely circulated trade magazine at that. This article should be treated no differently than other trade magazine articles such as Foodservice Equipment & Supplies, Gift Focus, Attire Accessories or Australian Dairy Foods. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears a significant trade magazine. Articleswithin it are unlikely to be of any value as RSs for scientific theories, but t hat's not relevant to notability DGG (talk) 03:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Levine, DGG. Edward321 (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Support closing these AfDs promptly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is it a journal (as indexed by CINAHL), a newspaper (as claimed by the subject), or a trade magazine? DigitalC (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as previously mentioned about the 10 other journals that were listed for AfD, STRONG SUPPORT closing all these d/t WP:SNOW, not the place for discussion in AfD's as stated above Medicellis (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went ahead and added an infobox to the stub, along with an image. --El on ka 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Keep per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timpanogas Regional Hospital

Delete this was nominated in a mass-nomination achieving the usual "no consensus" 7 months ago, since that time, no references, nor anything showing notability has been added to the article; hospitals are not inherently notable and this one has no indication showing its notability; WP is not a health care directory nor a guide for your HMO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC) *Delete no references. Chikwangwa (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - eight months without trying to establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references and corrected the name of the article. It should be Timpanogos Regional Hospital --Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Orem, Utah. There is really no data here for an article, and the two sources so far procured are the same source dealing with the opening of the hospital/first delivery. This to me violates WP:NOT#NEWS, since the source are really not covering the hospital as much as the event of its opening. Without other sources, and given there isn't much info, I will recommend merge. If that doesn't work, I will be fine with delete. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not assert notability. JFW | T@lk 01:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and the sources found here. While there are a fair number of "X was treated at the hospital", there's enough about it's opening and operations to write an article. As a regional hospital I think it has enough coverage to pass WP:ORG especially when searching under the proper name. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all those snazzy new sources Eastmain added to the article as well as the ones linked by TravellingCari. Easily satisfies WP:CORP for me. Vickser (talk) 02:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vickser. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most acute care hospitals will be notable. So deleting this article does nor appear justified. The lack of interest in editors in improving this past a stub is the problem. Maybe better categories would help get some notice. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 Redirect and merge to Lyme disease. This has clearly been a hard fought discussion but there does seem to be an overriding consensus on two points: firstly, there is sufficient notability for the subject to be included in Wikipedia; secondly, the article as it stands is far from ideal and it may be better to start from scratch. My decision is therefore to redirect the page to the main Lyme disease article, so that editors more knowledgeable on the subject than I can merge the good material from this article's history. This doesn't mean the Lyme disease controversy cannot be re-created at a later date - as long as the new article adheres strongly to WP:NPOV. Waggers (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease controversy

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Nominated per WP:NOTE and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Article does not clearly establish what the title controversy is. A long table implies equal weight for contrasting views of a condition called chronic Lyme, but the guidelines grouped under IDSA are the views of most of medical community not just IDSA. ILADS is a relativly small advocacy organization who's membership is open to many people not just doctors, scientists so the table is undue weight. The section on CDC is not a controversy so misplaced, the long-term drug section is too detailed review of primary literature and controversy is not obvios. All relavent information covered in Lyme disease so IMO this is a POV fork to advance views which don't make it at the main article. RetroS1mone talk 22:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, as an alternative, Stub and rewrite from scratch using reliable sources and reining in meatpuppetry: Horrible, horrible POV fork and a focus of extensive meatpuppetry. There is probably enough material for a good, encyclopedic content fork on the controversies surrounding Lyme disease, but this article isn't it. It should be stubbed and material should be added piecemeal with reference to specific reliable sources. Additionally, extensive administrative oversight is needed to address the serious problems with agenda-driven meat- and sockpuppetry which make this article and Lyme disease nearly uneditable. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge encyclopedic content into a short section on Lyme disease. Then keep the Lyme article semiprotected and appoint two experienced editors to guide improvement there. JFW | T@lk 06:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect and merge, hasn't there been a NEJM article on this? I think there is a debate but the article is a POV fork so let's rewrite it properly, preferably in a separate article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and place salvageable material in section within Lyme Disease, using (a) verification of all claims at the point of editing them into the article using (b) citations of reliable sources, with (c) care and attention being paid to NPOV and WP:UNDUE. If this section becomes too large (and only if this happens, given the quality of the sources that should be used) consider splitting off the section into main article of its own. DDStretch (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV fork. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect and merge, as a patient, this Wiki is for me. I can go to the CDC site for orthodoxy. Here, I expect to find, and have a right to see, all responsible, researched, fact based recommendations, pros and cons, and not only or mainly the prevailing policy of the medical establishment (no criticism intended). There clearly are areas of uncertainty and there are suffering people who fall into those areas who have to make hard choices. We deserve full disclosure and well presented POVs from both sides. The original article presumed the CDC's POV. I needed the table in this branch to visualize how the recommendations compared. Both sides are pretty scary.LeoBellew (talk) 2008 07 08Jul 04:58Tue (UTC) — LeoBellew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Editor's first post, and there has been off-Wiki recruiting on Lyme advocacy websites. [23], [24], [25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is not written for patients. See WP:MEDMOS#Audience and the medical disclaimer. The mere fact that some patients find this information convenient is not proof of topic notability or its appropriateness for an encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, POV fork giving undue weight to a fringe viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't necessarily have to be so. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think giving this "controversy" its own article overestimates its notability. It can certainly be mentioned in the main article, but this isn't something like the creation-evolution controversy where the debate itself is notable. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, but cover the social and political impacts and history, not the fringe claims except as necessary background. Lyme disease says that there are enough people barking about this to reduce the pool of researchers, which would seem to be sufficient for WP:Notability. I am not a doctor - does anybody not associated with ILADS promote this idea? If not, it might be appropriate to treat the idea there instead. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or merge and redirect if necessary. This is nowhere near as notable as, for instance, researchers shying away from animal testing. The conjecture and its social consequences are adequately treated in Lyme disease. Kudos to Tim Vickers. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for several reasons:
1. Content forking. We don't want two articles, Orthodox scientific views of Lyme disease and Alternative interpretations of Lyme disease. That, BTW, is what the article really is about, in its current form: it's not actually about the various political actions and, well, controversies. The article is not accurately titled. The two views should be represented in the same article with due weight (= less attention on the widely rejected "alternative" idea).
2. Notability. The alternative view of Lyme disease is not particularly notable. Important enough to mention in the article? Yes. Important enough to merit an entire article, with a careful comparison of the POV of each side? No. As Tim pointed out, this isn't like creationism vs. evolution; this is much more like Multiple chemical sensitivity spinning off an entire article for the sake of a point-by-point comparison of the differences between the mainstream and alternative views. Although I know a bit about the alternative interpretation of Lyme disease for professional reasons, I've never heard a regular news story about "chronic Lyme". (I see that exactly two are cited in the article; both are entirely critical of the "chronic Lyme" idea.) I have, however heard and read many stories on the mainstream view of Lyme disease. I therefore conclude that readers are not going to come looking for information about the controversy itself.
3. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. This article feels like it was created by someone with the specific agenda of drawing additional attention to this idea, with the hope of giving it additional credibility or at least raising awareness.
4. Undue emphasis on an idea that is rejected by mainstream researchers. I realize that this is inconvenient for agenda accounts that want to push minority viewpoints, but all Wikipedia articles, taken individually and in aggregate, must reflect the mainstream view -- the "orthodoxy", as one patient put it in comments above. This is the meaning of NPOV. If you consider these articles together, the aggregate attention dedicated to the rejected viewpoint and a few political actions is really not appropriate.
5. Wikipedia is WP:NOT your webhost. If a pro-chronic-Lymer wants to make this information available somewhere, that's fine. Grab a copy right now. There are no copyright restrictions to stop you. But put it up on your own website, not here. The fact that you want this information to be somewhere on the web does not oblige Wikipedia to be that place.

IMO the existing summary in the main article is perfectly adequate to describe this controversy. I think therefore that deletion is a reasonable action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been uncertain about whether or not to maintain this subarticle. On balance, the controversy is by itself sufficiently notable, and sufficiently virulent, that it would probably be agood idea to have this as a separate article, keeping the main one for the scientific aspects. DGG (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversy itself, as a separate entity from the disease, is notable. It must be addressed, since it has significant media coverage; so if this page were deleted, it would bloat the main article. The controversy has two aspects - the media/cultural issues, and the actual medical controversy. I'm not familiar enough with the scientific issues to know whether the alternative ideas about it are a fringe theory or not, but there is no doubt that whatever those issues are, there has been significant debate about it, too much to simply ignore. From a purely policy standpoint, the controversy as a topic meets WP:N and WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The controversy is notable enough to have an article of its own. As it stands, it contains far too much technical detail for an encyclopedia – for example listing the ten specific serologic bands in the CDC Western Blot IgG surveillance criteria tells you nothing about the controversy – I would have said something like "delete all except the first four paragraphs" but this is not an option in AfD. Jll (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/plea: Would it be possible to get a commitment from participants here, if this article is kept, to watchlist it to help deal with serious and ongoing agenda-based meatpuppetry surrounding this article? MastCell ^Talk 19:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've radically shortened the article by removing sections that were either unrelated to the controversy, or gave undue weight to fringe claims. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lyme disease and ~~delete~~ Redirect; with Tim Vickers tightening of the article, and accounting for duplicate text in the two articles, I believe the main article can now incorporate a merge (in terms of WP:SIZE as measured by Dr pda's page size script). The controversy does need to be mentioned somewhere on Wiki, but the coordinated meatpuppetry, fringe theory, and sockpuppetry issues can be more effectively dealt with by having all of the content in one article. Per Mastcell's plea, I see no evidence that some of the "keep" declarers will help maintain the separate article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid we can't merge and delete, Sandy, as that would violate the terms of the GDFL by failing to credit the contributors of the merged text. You'll have to pick one :) Skomorokh 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arrrrgh, this is why I rarely come this way :-) The correct term, I believe, is Merge and Redirect. Thanks, Skomorokh. 04:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete POV fork. B.Wind (talk) 04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork, deserves a line or two in Lyme disease but that is all --T-rex 19:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork, subject adequately covered by Lyme disease#Controversy and politics.--PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge to Emergency medical services. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical retrieval

Delete non notable neologism, and WP is not a dictionary. Mayalld (talk) 13:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added content to the page to indicate that this term is not new and in widespread use within the medical community over many years. Therefore it doesn't qualify as a neologism (which I presume is a term used by editors whose may be unfamiliar with an expression). As to whether it is non notable, I guess that for a western community in which the risk of such a process is 1 in every 50 individuals, that 2% of the population would regard this life-saving experience as highly notable. FlyingDoctor (talk) 14:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a stub not a dicdef. Sources are provided and so notability is demonstrated. Neologism is not a reason to delete (just reword). Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Emergency medical services. Not being in EMS or medicine, I am not 100% sure that there is not some major difference, but given the size of this article, I think it could be slipped in. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still neology; we have not have any actual external links, only cite by groups.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 00:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 merge. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AptaBiD

Does not appear to be a notable scientific technology. There is only one source, and this appears to be the only scholarly source available. Total GHits when excluding wikipedia total about 19. The phrase "Aptamer-Facilitated Biomarker Discovery" fetches fewer ghits, and the same scholarly source. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aptamer, still too new for an article of its own, but this is useful material for the more general article. The main article on aptamers does mention AptaBiD, but this could be expanded to a new section on the application of aptamers to cancer cell biology. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy and non-notable. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per Tim Vickers ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 07:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as section. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and remove any spamminess --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above, to new and doesn't imply WP:N yet for it's own article Medicellis (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Proposed deletions

for occasional archiving

Ensellure (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted
Elastance (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Deleted
C. T. Mathew (via WP:PROD on 22 October 2007) Kept