Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of 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 redirect to Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine. What Bishonen said. Regarding extended-confirmed protection, which Arbcom case would it come under? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:17, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

So we have another piece of promotional garbage that I nominated for speedy, which was stripped by Eastmain. (See the last one of these here).

So this page is the product of undisclosed paid and conflicted editing - see here  This page is associated with Cleveland Clinic which also has a sordid history of undisclosed paid and conflicted editing, some of which is listed at Talk:Cleveland Clinic, and see also the socking and the deleted-as-advertisement Cleveland Clinic Lerner Research Institute.

This "school" is tiny, with around 30 people per class, and the actual degree-granting institution is Case Western, and I merged and redirected this to their med school, which now, already, has all of the decent (as opposed to the indecent self-sourced promotional dreck) that was here plus some actual information. As you can see in the recent history, promotional SPAs and IP's have been edit warring to undo the redirect. This is just academic/industrial waste that is not notable on its own. Please delete and salt. Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment. Jytdog's post on article talk, here, makes it clear that the article is indeed infested with either a number of undisclosed paid editors, or just one UPE under many guises. In a way it makes sense to delete it, but I have a question: redirects have been persistently reverted, but how about redirecting again to Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and EC protecting the redirect? Might that work? Bishonen &#124; talk 07:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC).
 * Works for me! Jytdog (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - by which I mean redirect to section in article on the degree-granting institution and protect the redirect page. - Scarpy (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect - per 's suggestion.   21:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Break
Comment. I posting the following comments from the page's Talk Page.

Keep This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it provides additional information in a non-editorialized fashion about a completely distinct medical education program at CWRU School of Medicine. CCLCM has distinct admissions committees, admissions criteria, leadership, faculty, students, and educational mission. It a partnership between CWRU and Cleveland Clinic, not a small ancillary program within CWRU School of Medicine. Because of this, the amount of objective information necessary to provide an encyclopedic description of CCLCM cannot fit as sub-sub-sections of CWRU School of Medicine or Cleveland Clinic's pages. Critically, not all of this additional information is present in the existing version of this page, but could be readily added (e.g., detailed sections curriculum, history, etc.). Jytdog's use of the word school in quotes is absurd, as this is recognized by all medical institutions as a distinct program within Case Western. Most residency program websites also make a distinction between CCLCM and Case Western when indicating where their residents went to medical school. Jytdog's claim that this school is not distinct is simply factually incorrect.

If this page is allowed to continue existing, much more information about the program can be added that is strictly non-promotional and would occupy too much space on CWRU's page (community input on the Talk Page can be used to ensure a neutral point of view). This is in line with precedent of other Wikipedia pages, where certain subsections have dedicated pages due to the abundance of information related to the topic. Any aspects of this page that are perceived to be promotional can be readily edited or removed to maintain a neutral point of view (though no such sections in this article are obviously promotional as opposed to factual). It should be stressed that even if certain information on this page is perceived to promotional, the reasonable course of action is to correct these breaches of neutrality instead of deleting a page that provides encyclopedic value. It should further be stressed that no clear evidence has been presented by the nominator that demonstrates this page was created for the purpose of promotion. The introduction is objective and well-sourced.

While I have no doubt that individuals with connections to Cleveland Clinic have contributed to this and other pages, this is not grounds for deletion. Most academic pages on Wikipedia have contributions from affiliated parties, but community moderation and editing can ensure a neutral point of view is maintained. Wikipedia's speedy deletion policy clearly says that pages that could be edited to remove promotional material and still offer encyclopedic value (which this article clearly does) should be modified rather than deleted.

It is also critically important to note that Jytdog, who has requested a speedy deletion, may have a undisclosed conflict of interest, as he/she has repeatedly edit warred on many Cleveland Clinic related pages to prevent the addition of the most basic information that is clearly not promotional. Jytdog has taken an unusually high interest over several years in blocking information from being added to Cleveland Clinic's Wikipedia page and repeatedly deleting this page. This sustained, patterned behavior highly suggests he has a conflict of interest in regard to Cleveland Clinic (a negative conflict) despite the routine accusations he/she levies against all other users who attempt to contribute to related pages. His/her accusations of sock puppetry and promotions are not based on evidence but his own opinions. Specifically, there is no evidence for his/her accusation that another page related to this one has been "infested with paid editors and conflicted editors." Quite to the contrary, any user who has affiliations to Cleveland Clinic clearly disclosed their conflict of interest and routinely consulted the Talk page for revisions as opposed to making direct edits. This includes the executive director of communications at the Clinic itself.

I request any administrator who is reviewing this to investigate the nominator's claims. Altogether, this behavior suggests a gross negative bias toward Cleveland Clinic and should not be allowed to solely determine the fate of this and related pages. Tempest2552 (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Tempest2552 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Pasting my reply from Talk here as well:
 * Page was created by an account called CCLCM: Special:Contributions/CCLCM -- WP:CORPNAME, obvious paid editor.
 * Page editing stats:
 * 1) #1 contributor is Clevelandclinic2015 -- Special:Contributions/Clevelandclinic2015 -- WP:CORPNAME, obvious paid editor.
 * 2) contributor is 2,3-DPG -- Special:Contributions/2,3-DPG -- WP:SPA who did pretty much nothing but edit about CC or CCLCM; very WP:APPARENTCOI
 * 3) and #4 and #5 and #6 -- and  and  and me -- four editors including an admin who were trying to clean this page up.
 * 7) is Mednon, like #2 a promotional WP:SPA -- Special:Contributions/Mednon
 * 8) is TDrum2007 like #2 a promotional WP:SPA -- Special:Contributions/TDrum2007
 * 9) is Jazmaan who did little here but added a bolus of promotional content about the matching of the class of 2009 - that diff series; Special:Contributions/Jazmaan
 * 10) is, big shocker, yet another 100% promotional SPA. Special:Contributions/Tempest2552
 * yep. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal to Jytdog If your chief issue with this page is the appearance of advertising, the most reasonable course of action is to participate in correcting those revisions. Many of the "infractions" you have cited are several years old and no longer appear on the current version of this page. Please provide specific examples of promotional material present on this page, and, if you still wish to completely delete the page as a result, clearly explain why those examples warrant wholesale deletion of legitimate encyclopedic content rather than revision with community feedback. Tempest2552 (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC) — Tempest2552 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You are not addressing the entire deletion rationale. This "school" is not notable on its own; we cover it adequately in the article about the degree-granting institution. The existence of the page itself is promotional, including its title, which omits the degree-granting institution but does however -- and gee big shocker -- feature "Cleveland Clinic" and the name of the donor, who gave a bunch of money to the clinic.
 * This is one of the primary ways that paid and conflicted editors abuse WP; getting a page in WP is seen as a desperately important means to obtain visibility on the internet. This is not what WP is for per WP:PROMO.  I will not be replying to you further. You have dodged the disclosure question and everything you are doing is promoting this "program". Jytdog (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * First of all, I have clearly answered the disclosure question on my Talk page (i.e., there is no connection). Secondly, it is your opinion, not a fact, that the school is not notable on its own. As someone in the medical community, I can tell you that this statement is absurd. If you don't believe me, please consult any reputable source, including residency program directors who evaluate applications from different medical schools. If you have experience that supersedes residency director expertise on this matter of notability, please do share.


 * Finally, it is clear your opinion is not unbiased, as you have a documented history of trying to remove any positive information about Cleveland Clinic with the overgeneralizing accusation of impropriety. Please do not pretend to be a completely objective party in this discussion; you too have your biases that are clearly evident in your contribution history. Tempest2552 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See your talk page Jytdog (talk) 15:04, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Keep - Evidence for distinct Program Wow, this page has gotten quite heated. Before I contribute, I'd like to make the full-disclosure that I have a nonfinancial conflict of interest in regard to Cleveland Clinic. I am not an official representative or being paid for my contributions here or elsewhere on Wikipedia.

With that said, I'd like to submit some evidence for the notion that CCLCM is indeed a distinct program, and thus probably deserves its dedicated page. The first piece of evidence is from Doximity, a large social media platform for healthcare providers. On there, physicians can provide information on where they went to medical school. Cleveland Clinic Lerner and Case Western Reserve are two distinct options despite sharing the same parent program. This is because they are indeed viewed as separate programs. There is no easy to way provide direct links, but if you browse the profiles of doctors who graduated from CWRU, you will see that CCLCM and CWRU are distinct.

The second piece of evidence that supports this is how other medical centers classify graduates from CCLCM. I did some digging, and found that one year several students from both CWRU Med and CCLCM matched to the same program at Duke. On Duke's profile page of their residents for that year, their biographies reflect the distinct programs from which they came. CCLCM grads have CCLCM under medical school whereas traditional CWRU grads have Case Western listed. Here is the link: https://medicine.duke.edu/education-and-training/internal-medicine-residency/duke-residents/current-residents

Finally, I would like to voice my agreement with Tempest that Jytdog does not seem to be a completely neutral party in this matter. I reached out to him/her regarding contributing to the Cleveland Clinic page with the intent to fully disclose my COI. A few days ago I added this COI to my user page and it was also added to the Talk Page at Cleveland Clinic's article. I proceeded to make minor edits that did not in anyway change the substance or content of what was originally in the article. For more substantial changes I had in mind, I posted on the Talk Page to solicit feedback with my COI in mind, and made no direct edits. Despite this Jytdog, proceeded to edit war with me over trivial changes and proceeded to threaten to have me banned for posting promotional content on my user page. This discouraged me from making further contributions. This behavior, as well as behavior exhibited on this page, leads me to also question his/her objectiveness, or at the very least his/her capacity to participate in a professional and non-hostile manner in this discussion. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * When dealing with content, I have high standards for sourcing and for the content generated from sources, based on the policies and guidelines; I want conflicted editors to learn what we do here and why, and follow the guidelines and policies. Too many of them are too driven by their external interest to stop, and actually learn, and reconsider what they are doing.  My approach to this topic is indeed sharpened by the long string of people affiliated with Cleveland Clinic coming here, ignorant of and for the most part not caring about the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines through which the editing community realizes the mission, relentlessly dumping slag into our beautiful project and attacking editors trying to maintain the decency of the encyclopedia. The history of corruption is exactly what it is. That is your heritage here. You can be cognizant of that  and behave accordingly, or not; experienced editors here will remain very aware of it.  Jytdog (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously I cannot speak for or control the behavior of anyone else, even if they have connections to the Clinic. As I said, I am not an official representative or paid for this. I have responded in more detail on my Talk page to other points which I don't feel are appropriate to litigate here. Nonetheless, I hope we can move past this animosity and work together to ensure Wikipedia provides accurate, detailed, but also non-promotional information about Cleveland Clinic. With respect to this page, although I do not condone Tempest's method of approaching this issue, I do strongly agree that CCLCM deserves its own page, and that its content should be generated using community input. Please see the evidence I provided above. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * None of this has anything to do with deleting or keeping this advertisement dumped into WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree that this article is an advertisement. Even the admin who dismissed the speedy deletion request said it was not a promotional page. If that is the crux of your argument for deletion, it has already been dismissed. If you would like to make revisions to the page or participate in its content generation to ensure neutrality, I would welcome that. Wikiuser5991 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me say that again -- Nothing you have written here has anything to do with how the editing community determines to keep or delete an article. As I noted above, conflicted editors generally don't care about the mission of WP nor the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission. They just argue and argue and argue for what they want, driven by their external interest, based on nothing within Wikipedia, never stopping to learn about the mission or the policies and guidelines within Wikipedia. The disdain for Wikipedia is just so obvious. (and btw, the person who removed the speedy tag is not an admin but an "inclusionist" editor who tries to "save" things)Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirect and EC-protect as proposed by Bishonen. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2018 (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.