Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sumer's Radiology Weblog


 * 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 no independetly established notability. References are to self published works on other sites. It does look like a attempt to self promote. - Nabla (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sumer's Radiology Weblog
Reason behind this are - a. This seems to be a self advertisement. The article has been written by one of the concerned persons, Anil Aggarwala, who incidentally has authored a number of articles on himself and his achievements/books in wikipedia. The site's URL is http://sumerdoc.blogspot.com/. b. The different references links provide in blog, when looked up, provides the following result -
 * Journal of Thoracic Imaging is self published by the author of the blog Sumer Sethi.
 * Same with BMJ
 * The Radiographics link cited is dubious in nature as this actually is an e-mail by the author of the blog Dr. Sumer Sethi.
 * Similarly, International Society of Radiology link is self published by Dr. Sumer Sethi.
 * The blog has one genuine mention in Times of India, but not in the main paper. It was mentioned in the meant for Delhi only supplement Delhi Times. The link is here
 * The blog is a winner of MedGadget 2005 web award for best clinical blog the link of which is here

c. A Google search (check it out here) does not offer established sources to verify the claims of notability by the Editor.

Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please note the edits by Anil1956 & 122.162.58.16. Same wordings. Both are from Delhi. Now see the edits by the IP user,Special:Contributions/122.162.58.16. Any suggestions? It is clear that the user Anil1956 is using Sock Puppets to boos up his case. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kindly repeat the internet search with the title "Sumer's Radiology Site" which is exact title of the weblog — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anil1956 (talk • contribs)
 * Kindly sign your posts. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason of notability is in the wikipedia policy itself Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. This article is not a description of the site alone but the phenomenon of which site is popularly considered as forrunner callled as Rad blogging. Agreed Article in Journal of thoracic imaging is self published but very fact it was accepted for publication in a leading Radiology indexed journal establishes itsrole in changing the outlook from journals to blogs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.58.16 (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, only one source that is not self-published or written (e.g. no matter the prestige of the medical journal, a letter to the editor touting one's blog does not translate into notability). --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The article in question in Journal of thoracic imaging is not a letter to editor its a review article kindly recheck and it acknowledges Rad-Blogging as a new phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.59.146 (talk) 03:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It is a "review article" that is written by the blogger. It is not an independent source, and does not count toward notability. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (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.