Wikipedia

User:Draeco/Desk

< User:Draeco

bpt • desk • cites • philo • interiot • new AfD • SPATRA • WP:POLLS • WP:MEDCAB • WP:RFA • WP:RD/S, /L


WikiProject Medicine


Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

Projects

edit

Translate

edit

Articles

edit

I have particular pride/obsession/masochistic tendencies with several pages including:


Medicine

edit

Mark Kotter

edit
Mark Kotter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Delete Most sourcing I can find is actually about the Meatable company, not about Kotter. Being quoted in some articles about your company doesn't transfer notability to the person, and I don't see any evidence this meets WP:NPROF. - MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Dhiraj V Sonawane

edit
Dhiraj V Sonawane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod was removed. Fails WP:BIO. No reliable sources to indicate in-depth coverage. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment I created the article because I believe the subject passes WP:NPROF India Today has significant coverage in reliable sources such as the India Today, Times Of india newspaper also Passes WP:BASIC. Immediately after creating the page, more references were being added nominator put AFD Tagged. NASIIR (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    • The India Today piece isn't about him. It's a PSA: "Disclaimer: This is a public awareness initiative by Medtronic. Views are independent views of Dr Dhiraj Sonawane, intended for general information and educational purposes only, and do not constitute any medical device." The Times of India article is about a woman receiving surgery, not about the doctor. APK hi :-) (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
      Prod It was removed by mistake I didn't know it was removed while adding references, you should add it again if you want. If the India Today article is read carefully, it has a picture of him as well as a regular article about him. NASIIR (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the only NPROF criteria the subject might meet is WP:NPROF#C7. No other NPROF criteria seem to be met. It might be WP:TOOSOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyanochic (talk • contribs) 17:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Michael Stein

edit
Michael Stein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He is a professor not a dean or vice chancellor at any University or hasn’t received any national or international prestigious award. fails,WP:NPROF. Mainly reference used are of university self or publication sites, lack of independent reliable sources to establish notability, fails WP:GNG. TheSlumPanda (talk) 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This is inaccurate. Michael Stein is incoming Dean of the Boston University School of Public Health (https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2024/michael-stein-appointed-interim-dean-of-school-of-public-health/)
Regarding notability: he has appeared on Peabody award-winning radio (https://freshairarchive.org/guests/michael-stein), has had his books reviewed in the New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/books/09masl.html), and is a prolific researcher with >450 peer-reviewed publications. He is also the author of 14 books, which constitutes a "well-known [...] collective body of work [that] have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". [[2]] Deciderization (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
In case of becoming an interim dean i think that it doesn’t give directly notability because it will be only a temporary post for short period of time till the election of new permanent dean. Secondly interviews as generally considered non reliable because everything the interviewee says is primary and non independent per, wikipedia:Interviews #Notability . But yes he has some books which are reviewed by Some Independent and Reliable Sites i.e, NYC, Washington dc. Which is a good measure for his notability. TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Levon Tigranyants

edit
Levon Tigranyants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ordinarily I would have wanted to draftify this as part of NPP but it is way outside the 90 day limit. Draftification is my preferred option unless anyone is able to show more sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Bit.bio

edit
Bit.bio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There does not appear to me to be any independent, reliable, in-depth coverage for this company, as required by WP:NCORP. I have conducted a search I believe to be extensive, though perhaps not comprehensive, and the results are as follows:

Source assessment
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
All the citations already in the article seem to be pressers except the Forbes contributor and WP:TECHCRUNCH so skipping to:
Reynolds, Matt (2021-12-20). "This Startup Is Making—and Programming—Human Cells". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
 –   – Maybe the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph, and the first two of the last, are both directly about the subject and not quotes.   Bit of a stretch to call those three secondary.  
"Cambridge Company Bit Bio Presses Enter To The Software Of Life". The Healthcare Technology Report. 2020-06-23. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
   Seems like WP:TRADES likely paraphrasing a presser to me   No idea how reliable
Skipped, quickfail on other criteria
  
      Namecheck due to quoting founder, no actual coverage    
Google didn't pick up these ones for me for some reason, but:
Bawden, Tom (2020-10-22). "Scientists could make an organ from scratch within a decade after cracking human cell code". i. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
       Seems like a routine rehash of PR material to me    
Whipple, Tom (2020-10-27). "Bit.Bio: British firm cracks code for stem cells". The Times. Retrieved 2024-10-20.
       Slightly better than the one from i but still routine coverage of the partnership announcement IMO –  
  Again, this is 90% quotes        

(No relevant results were found for Elpis BioMed)

There are, of course, hundreds of other press releases, but I've omitted those for brevity. Additionally, even if appropriate sources meeting NCORP are found for this subject, half of the paragraphs in § Origins are biomedical in nature, which makes the sourcing to press releases instead of actually reliable sources highly inappropriate, and I would advocate that the article be confined to draftspace on those grounds alone (or otherwise removed from indexing). The creator of the article is also a single purpose account, though they have denied a COI. It is possible that they are simply an overly enthusiastic new editor. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on UPE and related Mark Kotter article
Alpha3031, just a brief note to say that there is abundant off-wiki evidence to indicate that the article creator here is a UPE linked to the company. That being the case, I wonder if you had considered the possibility of also referring the article on Bit.bio founder Mark Kotter to AfD as it is equally promotional and the work of the same UPE user? (I would do so myself but for unfamiliarity with the process of creating an AfD).
Further info on the background can be found at the relevant thread at COIN, here [3]. Kind regards, Axad12 (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I see. I did skim that thread but I missed the part about off-wiki evidence. If that's the case then the paid-en-wp VRT queue may be able to do things that AfD does not normally do, like enforce AfC (or block the editor in question). However, I will make it a priority to conduct a BEFORE for that article as well. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. My feeling is that the very easily accessible evidence is so compelling that referral to paid-en-wp should not really be necessary. The user is clearly a promo-only SPA with a disruptive editing pattern who has ignored several warnings. The transparent nature of the UPE should therefore be sufficient for the user to be site blocked.
Thank you for looking at the Mark Kotter article, much appreciated. If the two articles end up being deleted then hopefully that will put an end to the promo/SPA/COI activity around these subjects. Axad12 (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
On an initial review, I would expect deletion to be an unlikely outcome as Kotter would be measured against WP:NPROF (though I could be wrong, I don't do BIO AfDs as often). On the other hand, WP:BLP applies to positive content as well as negative, so I expect the best path forward would be to exclude any content that seems overly promotional, with the use of either the usual Dispute resolution or blocks and page protection as required, depending on the specific cause of the issue. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@Alpha3031 and Axad12: Yep an h-index of 48 is an easy pass of WP:PROF #1. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Smartse, noted. Thank you for the work you have done on the Kotter article to bring it closer in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Axad12 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very strong delete, as per nom. I'd also request that sanctions be implemented against the creator, who has been asked to declare their transparent UPE/COI status but has refused to do so, and has repeatedly removed COI etc templates from the articles they have created. Axad12 (talk) 05:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
    Postscript: Given the negative contents of the source assessment table I am against a redirect. The additional source material not covered by the table is apparently sourced to press releases. Once all the various kinds of poor sourcing are stripped out, what is there left to redirect? Axad12 (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    A redirect means there will be nothing at the page and anyone trying to go to Bit.bio will be taken to Mark Kotter instead Axad12. Not sure what you mean by what is left, unless I'm misunderstanding something? Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
    Apologies, I was momentarily (and rather foolishly) confusing 'redirect' with 'merge'. My mistake. Axad12 (talk) 09:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Redirect to Mark Kotter The coverage is either local or in trade publications which isn't sufficient to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
On second thoughts, since the biography is notable, we should probably redirect there. SmartSE (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't pass WP:NCORP, I searched Newspapers.com and Google News but was not able to find anything of note. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - I am on the same page with the source assessment with the exception of Wired which does meet WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion. However, the rest of the sourcing is mentions, unreliable, or routine announcements. A redirect could be in order assuming that the founder is notable. I am looking at that page now. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

David S. Feldman

edit
David S. Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent source which discuss in depth about subject, fails WP:GNG, doesn’t received any prestigious award. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Şifa University

edit
Şifa University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Ajay Kothari

edit
Ajay Kothari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article with no importance. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete: Nothing suggests notability, just the usual self-published.
Mon Bhai (talk) 18:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Possible self-promotion, fails to pass GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete : no special achievement in reserch field as well as no independent sources. May be a case of paid promotion. TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG, The entire article looks like a resume. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:PROMO. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as spine surgeon is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. Fails WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST and all of the above. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Peter Henderson (surgeon)

edit
Peter Henderson (surgeon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable sources. Editor has an obvious COI. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

edit
Edward Katongole-Mbidde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dolichodouglas

edit
Dolichodouglas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No pubmed hits for this term [5], no english language hits on google books, only 4 french language textbooks (2 of which old), majority of google search hits are wikipedia pages or sites which duplicate wp content. Not sure this is a common enough term in English language? Moribundum (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This is the only english language scientific source I can find: [6], which is an abstract about a surgical video at a convention in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Phycomin

edit
Phycomin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub was previously blanked and redirected but term is not mentioned at target, so currently it does not make a good redirect. The cyanobacteria extract contains other compounds besides phenethylamine (like phycocyanin), so redirect may be confusing. Page should be deleted unless there is consensus for a partial merge or for keeping as an article (though it does not appear notable). Mdewman6 (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I had done the BLAR as "redirect non-notable brand-name product to its active ingredient. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Green Algae". But if the brand/product is so unworthy to mention in the article about its active ingredient, then I agree it's a poor redirect. And if the brand/product contains other active or important ingredients, such that a simple redirect to this active ingredient is conceptually poor, then delete outright as a non-notable topic itself (the specific combination of components or its source). DMacks (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete I can find no evidence of notability independent of the underlying chemistry. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Protein poisoning

edit
AfDs for this article:
Protein poisoning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly-sourced WP:POVFORK of Protein toxicity. The sources cited are reliable, but are misrepresented: Of the references I could access, none use the term "protein poisoning" (though one of the references cited by Ref. 1 does), and Ref. 1 directly contradicts the first paragraph by describing the exact mode of toxicity in the Protein toxicity article. I propose a redirect to Protein toxicity, which has far better sourcing and far less SYNTH. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Rename to "rabbit starvation". I agree with the keep arguments in the previous AfD that there is a real topic here, with sufficient reliable sources to represent it. There appears to be no call to slap a genericized and un-validated name like "protein poisoning" on it, though. Also cull that excessive list of See Alsos. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
    If you go back and read the sources mentioning "rabbit starvation" (such as ref. 1 in the article and ref. 3 and 4 of the previous AfD), they're describing the exact phenomenon in the Protein toxicity article. In other words, nothing in the sources that I have read suggest this is a distinct illness from protein toxicity...they're both overproduction of ammonia from eating too much lean protein. It's thus redundant to the protein toxicity article, and its OR to give it another name (and a hatnote) suggesting this is a distinct topic. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Redirect with a very selective merge. The two articles are forks of each other; there’s no substantial difference. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

232d Medical Battalion

edit
232d Medical Battalion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

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

Naoto Ueno

edit
Naoto Ueno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:N WP:NBIO. No third-party sources indicating notability. Also severe WP:COI editing, including some that is clearly by the subject of the article. ~Darth StabroTalk/Contribs 02:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

  • ~120 words

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

  • ~160 words

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

  • ~120 words

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

  • ~50 words

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

  • ~20 words

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

  • ~160 words

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

  • ~120 words, but by a former coauthor

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

  • ~45 words

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I am in the middle of Keep and Draft. In the current state it should be drafted because the sources are not the best and it is written in a biased way. The current sources are not the best, and should probably be removed (the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center source is 404 error), and without them the page doesn't have anything, which is why I'm leaning draft/delete.
But I agree with the Keep people that the academic articles that he has written show notability. The problem is that the current page doesn't really reflect the research he does, or sources any of it.
Overall, the page needs an over hall.
- Bpuddin (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP DCsansei (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Surgery

edit

Proposed deletions

edit

An automatically generated list of proposed deletions and other medicine-related article alerts can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Article alerts


Deletion Review

edit


Spanish Translations

edit

I was once prominent in the WP:SPATRA (history). My offshoot translations were:

Independent projects:

Former cleanups

edit
Cleanup Taskforce
Desk Queue: 0
Areas of Expertise
geography, world politics and government

I am no longer a participant in the Cleanup Taskforce. My former contributions are listed below; you may submit a cleanup request here.

AfD

edit
Abbreviated Deletion Tools
Articles (howto|log)

{{subst:afd}}   {{relist}}
{{subst:prod|why}}

Speedy

{{delete}}   {{db-reason|because}}
{{db-author}}   see cat for more
{{db-nonsense}}   {{nocontext}}
{{db-test}}   {{db-banned}}
{{db-empty}}   {{db-catempty}}
{{db-bio}}   {{db-band}}
{{db-attack}}   {{db-notenglish}}
{{db-copyvio}}   {{db-repost}}
{{db-vandalism}}   {{vandalism}}

Redirects (howto|log)
Miscellaneous (log)
Copyvios (howto|log)

{{rfd}}   {{md1}}   {{copyvio}}

Mergers

{{merge}}
{{mergeto}}   {{mergefrom}}
{{merging}}   {{afd-mergeto}}
{{afd-mergefrom}}

Page moves

{{move}}   {{moveoptions}}
{{CapitalMove}}

Transwiki (howto|log)

{{Move to Wiktionary}}
{{Move to Wikisource}}
{{Move to Wikibooks}}
{{Move to Wikiquote}}

Deletion review, policy, log

I no longer believe in AfD, but I retain this template to help me navigate that wasteland if necessary.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Draeco/Desk&oldid=843141669"