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

Geoff Tabin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, England, Connecticut, Illinois, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep :I don't see how Fairweather Foundation is relevant to Geoff Tabin's notability. It is just the funding source of his current chair position, which seems relatively minor when compared to other things that make him notable such as him co-founding the Himalayan Cataract Project (the other founder has a page), being the fourth person to reach the top of the seven summits, and helping invent bungee jumping.

I believe Geoff is very notable based on the guidelines I have read. Beyond what I said above, there is a book about him and Sanduk (second suns), he himself is a published author, and there are articles written about him in magazines such as national geographic (ie https://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/article/restoring-vision-for-south-sudan-dispatches-from-the-duk-lost-boys-clinic). Moreover, he was on the cover for the now defunct National Geographic Adventure magazine, who's Wikipedia page uses his image!

If there are other ways in which the article fails to pass notability thresholds, please let me know what I am missing, but again, I think the Fairweather Foundation is totally irrelevent. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on to this, using the news button ont the nominated for deletion box shows articles about Dr. Tabin from CBS, The Economist, and Outside magazine. CallipygianConnoisseur (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find I cannot agree with the nomination. Subject appears to have a named chair at a major institution, and evidently has had substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity per [1]. ResonantDis_tortion 09:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The case for both WP:PROF#C5 (the named professorship) and WP:GNG (the media coverage of his cataract work) is clear. He doesn't appear to have made an impact in scholarly publications (PROF#C1) but he doesn't need to when notability for his medical outreach work is present. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Tabin has an endowed professorship at Stanford, which required a multi-million dollar donation from a donor. Other than being chair of a department, an endowed chair is arguably the highest honor that one can achieve as an academic physician. Having an endowed chair at a prestigious university (Stanford) is a strong indicator to having achieved the highest level of success an academia.

As for his accomplishments, Geoff Tabin will go down as one of the most impactful ophthalmologists of all time. Through his NGO, Cure Blindness Project, he has directly financed 1.6 million cataract surgeries (a mind boggling number in Ophthalmology)—and when factoring in the surgeries performed by the trainees that CureBlindness hospitals have trained, that number likely exceeds 10 million. To give a comparison point, there are about 3 million cataracts performed in the entire United States per year. He has established five tertiary teaching hospitals (e.g. built an entire Eye Department in Nepal, Ghana, etc) and funded subspecialty fellowships for hundreds of physicians, ensuring that multiple low- and middle-income countries now have their first retina, glaucoma, cornea, oculoplastics, and pediatric ophthalmologists.

When considering the cumulative impact of his work, he will likely have more impact than almost any Ophthalmologist in the history of the world. Furthermore, he will be one of the more impactful physicians in Global Health (not just Ophthalmologists) of all time based on the scale that his operations have reached (and continue to grow).

His other accomplishment (climbing, mountaineering) are also exceptional, but I will not delve into those details as the original concern was just for WP:NPROF. Arthurbrant21 (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CELFULL

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, California, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Credence Hospital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This seems to be a straightforward promotion of an IVF clinic and doesn't meet the WP:NHOSPITAL guidelines. Charlie (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, India, and Kerala. Charlie (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability, but the consensus remains unclear to me, and my own standards are not measured in the same way. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per norm. Fails WP:NORG. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabh Gupta

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NBLP.
Sources provided (in order):

(1): Business Daily: A puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(2): Mifeed: The title says “Blazing Trails In Biotech”, need I say more? Same as above. Published in the same week as the above source and another puff piece on the subject, who seems to be being interviewed for this; not an independent source.
(3): Company website: Primary source, as this is the company's own site. Self-published content.
(4): LA Harbor News: I am unable to visit the site and therefore cannot vet this. My browser tells me this is an unsafe site. Visit at your own direction.
(5): Founders Network: This is another primary source, as it is self-published. Details are taken from an event hosted via EventBrite here.

Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, Medicine, Technology, Uttar Pradesh, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nectar Lifesciences

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Haryana, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Prabha Medanta Super Specialty Hospital

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NHOSPITALS. No source proves it to be a Level 1 trauma center. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vabbing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender, Medicine, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article needs expansion but it has received a good range of coverage ([2] [3] [4] [5]) and even been the subject of a systematic review (empty, with no evidence to support it). Astaire (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Still getting coverage in 2024 [6], showing an extended period of critical notice. This as well [7].... But why, seriously, why? Oaktree b (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

AEYE Health

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[8] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[9] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[10] is not independent
[11] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[12] is a copy of a press release
[13] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[14] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[15] copy of a press release
[16] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[17] Summary of a press release
[18] Summary of a press release
[19] Summary of a press release
[20] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. No support for deletion after three weeks. Owen× ☎ 13:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Vishwakarma

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([21]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([22], [23], [24] and [25]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldm1954 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find coverage that can clarify his notoriety.. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[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.

Surgery

Proposed deletions

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

Periowave (via WP:PROD on 13 September 2023)
Biopôle (via WP:PROD on 12 September 2023)

Deletion Review

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 1