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:

1. 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.
2. 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

See also: Health and fitness-related deletions and Disability-related deletions

Mohammed Amin Nezami (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)

A medical doctor with some self-published books, but seemingly no peer-reviewed research. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. I've been unable to find them on Scopus; references seems to be mostly from connected sources. Klbrain (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Klbrain,

I`m currently working to add more reference for the Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami, there are not only self-published book, there are 40+ publication, that can be found on https://www.allcancercare.com/publications.html

additionally if you look over these reference below, then this articles is very useful for the presence of Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/PO.19.00141 - Search "Mohammad Nizami", you`ll see his presence.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.12097 - Same

Research Publication: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328453409_Clinical_implications_of_epidermal_growth_factor_receptor_EGFR_epigenetic_modification_in_lung_cancer_proof_of_concept_for_dual_multitargeted_epigenetic_therapy_MTET_in_combination_with_egfr_inhibitor

ProInvenstor Reference: https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/311761/sahel-oncology-using-technology-to-battle-aggressive-cancers-like-lung-and-ovarian-11761.html

You request for deletion is not liable according to me, if I`m missing something then I`m open for the discussion, Thank you. Ambrosebasil57 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Kent (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)

All coverage here is WP:ROUTINE besides one paper, where he isn't even the first or last author. Pretty clearly a WP:PUFF article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources are a blend of press releases ([1]), trivial mentions ([2]), affiliated sources (this one from the venture fund that invested in his company, this one), the subject's own writing ([3]), primary source Q&A interviews ([4], [5]), and WP:TRADES coverage ([6], [7]). The Information (which I can't access) has the best shot of being WP:SIGCOV but we need multiple examples to pass WP:GNG and I don't see that. The only other potential criteria I could see is WP:NACADEMIC but Kent's h-index of 2 is extremely low; he does not seem to be an influential researcher. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just promotional fluff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Muhammad Imran Qadir (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)

Article is a bunch of Promotional contents. References are more than 60, but all fake just to support inline citations. Also seems like that the page is generated from AI. Nothing find notable that are meeting the criteria for the WP:BLP, also failed basic WP:GNG. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Pakistan. Sackiii (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The length that someone went to fake the references is impressive, so much so that I would be inclined to believe they were AI-generated if it weren't for the fact that some of the fake references have been there for years. No independent references that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to create this article on Artificial Intelligence module and the response was same as the article is written here. Sackiii (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I was only referring to the faked references in my post, but I'm not at all surprised that the article was AI-generated as well. Thanks for nominating. Madeleine (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Vista Ambulance Services (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)

Should be considered for deletion if it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish notability, as it may not meet Wikipedia's general notability criteria for organizations. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Edit.pdf (talk) 08:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Well, does it? And why does this nom read as if it were generated by AI? Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bella Vista, Arkansas#Public safety, where appropriate mention is made. And please use your keyboard and manually type your rationale next time. Nathannah • 📮 20:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of pneumonia deaths (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)

This list runs afoul of WP:IINFO, and is overly large and unweildy, or at least would be if everyone with an article that had passed from pneumonia was added into it. The information is best served as a category, especially since when you start splitting hairs a lot of these people didn't really die of it, or if they did it was contributory due to something else they had, with the main point being it's an issue if I even have to ask that question. Wizardman 00:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Wizardman 00:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This is the second nomination for this list; back in May 2005 there was a VfD (as AfD was still called back then) at (what is now titled) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous pnemonia deaths, which was closed as no consensus beyond what would be the first of several page moves. I'll note that none of the "keeps" from 20 years ago would really be seen as P&G-based today, as two of them gave no rationale at all (just calling for the aforementioned move, and one also calling for cleanup), and the third (technically, second of three) simply said excellent, useful list, which is no longer considered a useful deletion discussion comment without context. That said, a VfD from 2005 is in no way (in either direction) a predictor of how a 2025 AfD can or should go, and I have no opinion or further comment on the current list. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I couldn't agree more. We've probably got around a million articles on people who are deceased, so it's hard to imagine that only 140-odd of them died of pneumonia. Nor are the people in this list famous for dying of pneumonia. As it stands, this list is therefore an arbitrary, hopelessly incomplete list documenting something that's not a major part of why its members are here at all. I can't see how the list could be of any genuine use to anyone; you couldn't compile historical statistics from it, and if you're looking for someone who died of pneumonia, they're probably not in it, so it's of little navigational value. And what on earth is the "further reading" supposed to do for anyone? "Pedro II: the untold story: The last emperor of the New World revealed by unpublished letters and documents" (Google Translate of the title) doesn't sound like a promising source for the general concept of pneumonia deaths through history. Yes, this is a perfect case for sticking to categories and not attempting a list. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is simply too broad per WP:SALAT. Pneumonia is one of the most common causes of death that there is. Per our list of causes of death by rate article, lower respiratory tract infections (which in this context is virtually synonymous with pneumonia) account for 4.8% of all deaths. There is no way we could possibly even approach being exhaustive here, and even if we did we would then just have a terribly WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, similar to if we tried to make a list of left-handed people (though being left-handed is a bit more common than dying from pneumonia). All of this also applies to List of deaths from coronary thrombosis (including the nominator's point about the inherent uncertainty in attributing the death to a single, specific cause). TompaDompa (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:SALAT as being an incredibly broad list that could list thousands. A category (Category:Deaths from pneumonia) is enough. jolielover♥talk 16:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Zarov (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)

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or general notability (perhaps on the basis of hospital administration); the references don't seem to be independent of the source or their employer. Scopus search shows only two publications. Created by a single purpose account. Klbrain (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Previous AfD was closed as no consensus despite having no keep !votes at all. A non notable former university that was only briefly open and was, importantly, a small private university. Thus the relevant SNG is WP:NORG, and so we need sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH and also independent as per WP:ORGIND. Such sourcing does not exist. Attempted a redirect as suggested in the last AfD, but that was reverted, so here we are. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pinging previous contributors: Chidgk1, SirBrahms and Peter James (who did suggest the redirect). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Schools, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. What the guideline actually says: "For-profit educational organizations and institutions", not all private institutions. WP:GNG is enough, but I don't think the coverage in the article now, or that found in the previous AfD, is enough for that. Peter James (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I remain unopposed to a redirect to Purges in Turkey following the 2016 Turkish coup attemptList of educational institutions closed in the 2016 Turkish purges where this is mentioned, and where I already merged the information here. Yes, you are right that GNG is enough if the university were a suitable not for profit institution, but as far as I can see, from what little information is out there, it was seized as a business interest of Turkish businessman Akın İpek. The doesn't sound like a not for profit. But, as you say, that is likely moot as GNG is not met either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If you actually merged information to another page, then we can't delete this for legal/copyright license reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The merge was only of the sources, and no substantive text. I added the sourcing to the page following the last AfD. The discovery of the sourcing is in the AfD page which will be preserved. Attribution to this remains available, and is easily flagged with a dummy edit showing copywithin from the AfD page. And that is despite the fact that the merged material is not creative nor original, and that the licensing issue is a touch more nuanced. So in this case we certainly can delete, but I reiterate I am unopposed to a redirect. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Dental School (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:NSCHOOL and also seems to be WP:PROMO. Since we already have an article for the University of Adelaide, I don't see the need for making an article for a wing of the school, not to mention the entire article sounds more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Australia. Zeibgeist (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, so "the entire article sounds more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article" is irrelevant.
2. It's pretty normal to have separate articles for medical schools and similar programs, so this isn't unreasonable. However, Wikipedia:Merging is something you could propose without resorting to AFD.
3. It didn't take long to find sources,[8][9][10][11] including about some unique research [12][13][14][15]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmazz (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 single sources meets NCORP; routine not reliable and deep media sources; not notable company by its own Taking off shortly (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, United Kingdom, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I found [16] and [17], Which are significant references from reliable resources. This company meets WP:NCORP. I can also see the page is reviewed by Klbrain and he stated on creator's talk page "Thanks for creating this page for a company, which has independent coverage focussing on the company which has drugs in clinical use." Bakhtar40 (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm surprised to see the above keep vote seriously considering this link as meeting WP:NCORP: [18]. Let's analyze this source:

Fails to Establish Significant Coverage

• The article is primarily an announcement about a licensing agreement between **Dr. Reddy’s** and **Pharmazz** regarding the distribution of Centhaquine in India.
• There is **no in-depth analysis** or **independent investigative reporting** about Pharmazz as a company.

Lack of Independent and Substantial Coverage

• The article **relies on company statements** and does not offer a third-party evaluation of Pharmazz’s impact, financial standing, or industry significance.
• The primary quotes come from **company executives** (Dr. Reddy’s and Pharmazz), suggesting that the content is largely derived from **press releases** rather than independent reporting.

Focuses on a Product, Not the Company’s Notability

• The coverage is about the **drug Centhaquine**, not Pharmazz as a notable entity.
• WP:NCORP requires **substantial coverage of the company itself**, not just its product deals.

This source is a **routine business announcement** and does **not** provide the depth of coverage required to establish notability under WP:NCORP. 71.167.18.238 (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering to close as no consensus, given the lack of participation. But another relist wouldn't hurt.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 12:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Most of the sources are either routine announcements (i.e. churnalism) or are discussing the company's products, not the company. Ref. 1 in the article might possibly just clear the bar, but I don't know about the source's reliability. Altogether very weak sourcing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's worth pointing out WP:SIRS review of the sources is somewhat weak. Very little in terms of independent sourcing and the main thing is that it lacks the widespread coverage from such sources that would factor in notability.  GuardianH  16:36, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IP editor's analysis above. Agree with the other editors that the sourcing seems too weak to meet WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks Significant CoverageRahmatula786 (talk) 06:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Per nom fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)

• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 1