Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasman Diabetes Institute


 * 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 delete. There is consensus that while this organization exists and there is coverage of it, that coverage does not meet our notability guidelines for organizations (WP:NORG). There seems to be enough uncanvassed participation here to make a close. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Dasman Diabetes Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The major contributor (UncleScrooze) to this article has been blocked in the past because of WP:SOCK investigation. And, similar kind of edits/force edits are being executed by certain Wiki IDs. Calling out for AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Searched this hospital on the web. A very few passing mentions in local media outlets. But, at the same time has a lot of press releases. Kindly consider this fact, wether it passes WP:NCORP in the first place. - Hatchens (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've removed one source which was headed as "Sponsored Report". Another celebrates a vanity award from Business Initiative Directions. While I believe the institute may be notable, the article (and the image the institute projects) reeks of PR work by someone who can't tell the difference between puffery and real, solid academic work & achievement. Borderline WP:TNT? Cabayi (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment @Cabayi - WP:TNT is OK. But, to be considered as a well-known research Institute, it lacks credible citations at JSTOR, Google Scholar, Web of Science, SCOPUS, etc (in PubMed just 2 mentions). Even if someone starts from the scratch it will finally lead to WP:DRV. Shall we get some (or wait for) suggestions from others? - Hatchens (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7962297/Type-1-diabetes-tackled-injecting-insulin-producing-cells-eye.html
 * Comment @Cabayi - This article looks like a candidate for WP:TNT. Not sure whether it warrants a deletion because the institute looks real. There are sources which the editor has failed to reference.

A quick search also turned up their Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Fahd Al-Mullah. Came across several of his citations at JSTOR, Google Scholar, Books, etc. There’s some notability there.

https://www.pubfacts.com/author/Fahd+Al-Mulla

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5409-3829

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=dr+fahd+al+mulla&btnG=

http://www.genomicmedicinealliance.org/index.php/about/scientific-advisory-committee/52-fahd-al-mulla Microft13 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. That first source is rightly not in the article. From the closing comment in WP:DAILYMAIL - "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited". Narky Blert (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - At the time of posting this comment: Microft13 - Out of 5 Edit History/ Only 1 prominent comment on this AfD discussion, rest all minor edits. Refer this - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Microft13 & Mav1012 - Out of 8 Edit History / 4 edits perfomed at Dasman Diabetes Institute, rest all minor edits.  Refer this - https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org/Mav1012 - It seems to be both the IDs have been recently created to edit Dasman Diabetes Institute and influence this AfD discussion. A classic case of WP:MEAT. - Hatchens (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Courtesy pings: Call for AfD Discussion. . - Hatchens (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, why exactly am I being pinged here? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Vanamonde, its a "call/ping" for deriving a consensus w.r.t this AfD Discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * AfDs usually attract enough participation without anyone being pinged; if you must ping people, though, it's best to focus on those who have some subject-matter expertise. Pinging users from a different area, as you have done, can easily violate WP:CANVAS, which you need to be aware of. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde. Earlier, I participated in such ping calls. That made me to raise this ping. I apologize, I was not aware about WP:CANVAS. What would you suggest?. - Hatchens (talk) 03:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that pinging editors to participate in an AfD is unusual and perhaps even undesirable and it would be difficult to prove that the pings are to random editors, as such their views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded. I am however unsure about the “subject-matter expertise part”, considering that Wikipedia the project is being created by anonymous volunteers. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * if a discussion isn't getting enough attention, notifying relevant wikiprojects can be helpful, so long as you take care to phrase that notification neutrally. It can also be helpful to ping editors with a lot of experience on Wikipedia editing related subjects, particularly those who have worked on bringing articles through our peer review processes (GAN and FAC in particular). In the latter case, though, you have to make sure you're not accidentally selecting people who subscribe to a particular POV. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Vanamonde and Yogesh Khandke, I'm just under 2000 edits, a kinda noob. I need to learn a lot of things. But, thanks to both of you for showing the way - 1) Notify the relevant wikiprojects 2) Random editors' views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded. Crystal clear. - Hatchens (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , "2) Random editors' views on the subject of deletion may be disregarded" is not true. Views of editors who were canvassed may be disregarded. Views of editors that do not include arguments from the deletion policy may be disregarded. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Usedtobecool, thank you for the input. Duly noted. - Hatchens (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Recusing myself: ping thing, have shared this AfD discussion on the Project Medicine | talk page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I was notified of this AfD and I saw it, and initially decided to refrain from discussing. However, the subject doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Some of the sources are merely passing mentions of the hospital. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep TNT essential, however, I quickly found plenty of papers in reputable journals with this as their affiliation. Seems like quite a new institute, some of the papers were in high impact journals, (not sure why they were proud of the Hidawi!) I didn't have any difficulty finding papers with the affiliation so I am assuming its well known.

Here's a couple, but yeah just enter the name of the insitute into pubmed. Check the affiliation, most seem genuine, no real reason to believe its not notable. i.e. collabs on nature genetics, nature a recent Cell paper PMID:29625052 J Diabetes PMID:31472036 PainProf (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here comes one more newly minted ID PainProf (just 22 days old) to influence this AfD with couple of PubMed journal entries which hardly provides any concrete references (i.e., just passable mentions). Here is the actual link of PubMed articles which are mentioning this institute - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Dasman%20diabetes%20institute. It is a coordinated effort save this page - I'm not at all surprised. -Hatchens (talk) 07:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Hatchens please assume good faith, you could check my contribs I just saw this in the WP:medicine talk and was curious, I have no skin in the game re this particular institute. I did find they have a collab with Joslin Diabetes Centre too, see https://www.joslin.org/about/news-media/joslin-kuwaits-dasman-institute-forge-strategic-alliance, that's a HMS affiliate institute which gives me complete confidence that they are not a paper institute. Joslin is very well known with an excellent reputation in Diabetes research so I don't think they would do this if it wasn't . I'm not fully sure I understand your argument for deletion, the institute exists, they do have sources that don't seem to be press releases. Remember that institutes outside of the anglophone won't have as much coverage in the international press. Journalists tend to cover institutes in their own country and region more often. i.e. The ABC (AU) will cover more Australian science, etc. They do have coverage in the Arab times. For pubmed, I think not only the articles with the centre in the title are relevant as that would normally only be clinical populations etc but also the affiliations of the scientists - you have to expand the section on authors to show that, there are around 300 for that - by searching the name and checking a couple, which seems okay, not a huge number but it really seems they have only become more active recently based off the graph, I'm guessing some kind of expansion. There is a fairly common bias against non-anglo/euro institutes and I would be really careful to avoid perpetuating that. PainProf (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination and the above discussion.ScottHastie (talk) 08:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete — Per nom’s rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk) 12:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 12:40, 19 June 2020‎ (UTC)
 * Comment: Having taken my time, through a more careful review of the sources. I found it was referenced by the Kuwaiti government here:

The site has a page on the arabic wikipedia here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D9%2583%25D8%25B2_%25D8%25AF%25D8%25B3%25D9%2585%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586_%25D9%2584%25D8%25A3%25D8%25A8%25D8%25AD%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AB_%25D9%2588%25D8%25B9%25D9%2584%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AC_%25D8%25A3%25D9%2585%25D8%25B1%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B6_%25D8%25A7%25D9%2584%25D8%25B3%25D9%2583%25D8%25B1&prev=search

By the Kuwaiti government here: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ar&u=https://media.gov.kw/Aldiyra/IinjazatKuwaitiaDetails.aspx%3FNID%3D12876&prev=search

By the global genomics alliance here: https://g2mc.org/our-team/ which is a large consortium for genomics https://www.genome.gov/health/Genomics-and-Medicine/accomplishments

As previously stated the Joslin Diabetes Institute, at Harvard https://www.joslin.org/about/news-media/joslin-kuwaits-dasman-institute-forge-strategic-alliance

Arab news https://www.arabnews.com/node/1647311/lifestyle

The National https://www.thenational.ae/world/gcc/coronavirus-kuwait-researchers-predict-mid-may-peak-1.1006488

Nature Middle East (A subsidiary of Nature Publishing group) https://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2020.33

An invited opinion at Stat https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/09/tribalism-objectivity-low-carb-high-fat-diets/

Referenced by the WHO here (brief) https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/2/10-020210/en/

Harvard TH Chan School of public health https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/gnet/43-2/

Plus a lot more local sources. Nominator clearly didn't look for sources before this AfD.

PainProf (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete: In Google News, most of the prominent mentions are coming from press releases as pointed by the nom. And, in the main media segment, passing mentions are either coming from a doctor or a researcher who is affiliated to this institute, talking about certain diseases or treatments. No one is talking about this institute per se. Besides that, a sockpuppet is involved in moving this page from draft to main article namespace. So, enough pieces of evidence are available to support the prevailing consensus.Nathan811 (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the references are all local than it fails WP:CORPDEPTH. While I didn't pick through all of the references, announcements of awards and contracts in local and industry publications smacks of their reprinting press releases coming from the institute. While there's nothing wrong with that it's not reliable journalistic coverage involving fact checking and editorial oversight. Blue Riband► 02:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: If you are saying that the mentions are all of the researchers who work at the institute, then I think you've proven notability. The institute (as with all academic institutions) is not just a building, but a collection of researchers. If you are saying the researchers are producing notable discoveries, it stands to reason, the institution that groups them together and supports the research is also notable. The research is not possible without the institute. Their coverage can't be separated from the institution. As a general point, this kind of coverage would be most academic institutions, but it seems counter intuitive that most institutions wouldn't be notable.

Per the criteria, let's do a source analysis and see if it has any sources that allow notability.

Kuwaiti Government: Is independent, reliable, and significant Joslin Diabetes institute: Is independent, reliable and significant Arab news: Is international (Based in Saudi Arabia), independent, reliable and signficant. https://www.arabnews.com/node/1647311/lifestyle Oxford business group: Interview, not indepedent, signifcant, reliable: https://oxfordbusinessgroup.com/interview/facing-problem-obg-talks-dr-qais-saleh-al-duwairi-director-general-dasman-diabetes-institute-ddi

As a general point, I think opinions, that are per nom, " couldn't find any citations", "didn't read the sources" are disingenuous, they reflect a lack of attempt to find notability. The deletes arguments have failed to prove a lack of notability. This is clearly a major research institution (with over 300 publications in the past few years) in a nation not known for its research. Removing it would be unjustifiable. PainProf (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. While a good researcher could find references, I don't see WP:SIGCOV about what is essentially a small, specialized and local hospital. I have argued, often unsuccessfully, that we have to have standards for hospitals. There's hand-waving about helping "patients" (how many?) "across Kuwait" (in the desert?), but no statistics or data that can be verified. As far as I can tell, this is an outpatient research facility. This is an nonredeemable mess. Please convince us otherwise with good evidence. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. An institution that churns out papers isn't indication of notability. Nor are press releases, written by or on the paid orders of it. What others write about them does count and WP:SIGCOV is not present. Ifnord (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2020 (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.