Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioSense
- 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. given sources brought up here and added to the article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- BioSense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NORG. No WP:SIGCOV in secondary or tertiary sources to establish independent notability. A couple passing, definitional, mentions in books, but not enough for this encyclopedia. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Politics, Science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral WP:SIGCOV might apply. I found some mentions that are more-than-passing-mentions that are outside of cdc.gov, including this news article https://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/cdc-realign-biosense-focus-most-populous-cities-0 and this GAO report https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-09-100.pdf. Mathwriter2718 (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first I would classify as WP:ROUTINE of budget requests. To the second, one GAO report in 25 years would speak to its non-notability. Longhornsg (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)- I saw this page was up for deletion. I would recommend you keep it. I think there are actually many articles on this topic as a major CDC initiative for syndromic surveillance including in depth reviews for instance several:
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15714629/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28692386/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177704/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16177687/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19635001/
- Examples of use in literature
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21128815/
- I think probably less likely to receive mention in popular press but certainly not in academic press. I think the nomination as passing mentions would be disingenuous most the articles discuss the system extensively. All are published in reputable journals for the field.
- in particular popular medical articles
- e.g. JAMA https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/183185
- and Lancet infectious disease also have covered issues with the program
- https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(06)70485-6/abstract Dotingacademic (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- also in some popular media; but rarely
- E.g.
- https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/04/syndromic-surveillance-useful-to-track-pandemics-like-covid-19.html
- https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114186869834793251
- Or
- Judith Graham Ronald Kotulak, T. staff reporters. (2004). Bioterror detectors go high-tech ; Research focuses on earlier warning: Chicago Final Edition. Chicago Tribune available through proquest. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- also in the Scientist Biosense or Biononsense,
- https://www.proquest.com/docview/200056066
- Describes the shortcomings - misflagged outbreaks etc. Dotingacademic (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need some more closure opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep the company per above comments has received some media coverage. Might be notable and some new sources might be added too. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 11:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per sources presented above. There do seem to be a lot of sources directly focusing on this initiative in depth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- 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.