621:. I don't strongly disagree with the premise of your commentary (or essay or...) except in its premise as to how editors come to insert said OR into articles. I might leave you a note on your page in that regard. Needless to say, we've moved some distance from this particular subject. I might hat this section and leave Bakerstmd's comments to stand on their own.
616:
Except that MEDRS goes on with further restrictions. The equivalent would be to suggest that someone who sees an event himself, even participating in it (like a journalist in a storm or reporting live from an event), is a "primary source" because they are "directly involved". That's not at all what
518:
found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations." It is really vital that we use secondary sources throughout WP but especially in biology/biomedial/health topics; the PRIMARY literature is
336:
on a press release doesn't automatically make it unreliable. It isn't a word-for-word re-print and there is clearly some editorial toning-down. A significant portion of all news is based on press releases or press conferences, that doesn't make the news an unreliable source. The fact that a trade
505:
in medicine is one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats, filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary
506:
sources for facts about the research and discoveries made." yep. This is contrast to a SECONDARY source which: " in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to
581:
says "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." That is exactly what any publication of scientific research is and what the definition of PRIMARY in MEDRS directly echoes. If folks are widely citing PRIMARY
473:
As it is co-written by Klobe, yes absolutely (as per our discussion above). Sources written by the creator/proponent of a product (any product) are primary sources. Again, any reason the others (that do no share the same characteristics) would be considered
297:
there are four sources in the article. Three are primary sources from the biomedical literature (which should not be in the article) and one is from a trade rag and is based on a press release from the hospital where they did a clinical trial of it
478:
sources or otherwise not suitable for conferring notability as significant coverage in reliable sources? I should point out that I'm still not convinced this should be kept. But if it is to be deleted, it should be for the right reasons.
165:
617:
PRIMARY intends but it is exactly what MEDRS instructs. Analysing the situation, coming to a conclusion and presenting that conclusion in written form does not make a source a "primary source" except in the context of
594:. Secondary sources cull that stuff out, except for the very worst of them. I haven't found any place in WP that really pulls together (what I view as) the centrality of secondary sources to everything we do here as
549:
acknowledges. This particular instrument is a terrible test case for balancing that policy and that guideline. Though the article makes no medical claims, it is about a medical product and so I suppose the
545:) policy suggests. Take almost any other subject area (non-medicine) and such research, conducted by an expert in their field, would never be considered a primary source. And I'm aware that's exactly what
554:
guidelines should apply, though I don't think that is (ever) what they were intended for. As a prouct, has it been the subject of coverage, study and research? Yes. Would that be enough for it to meet
159:
233:
118:
272:
require MEDRS sources for verification. But a lack of MEDRS sources is not the same thing as a lack of sources. There's plenty of pseudo-science and pseudo-medicine which is
694:
this device had been discussed in major popular media like NYT, WSJ etc, that would make it NOTABLE, for whatever was discussed in those sources. It is also likely that
213:
591:
125:
403:
It's hypothetical - part of my original query as to the nominator's suggestion that non-MEDRS sources = non-notability, which isn't supported by policy.
91:
86:
95:
78:
407:
applies to content drafted by WP editors, not to reliable sources - we expect them to be original research. That's the point. As to the others?
180:
147:
17:
558:
in any other context? Yes. But it falls under the umbrella of "medicine" and so those sources are unintentionally disqualified.
256:- I'm not sure I agree with the logic of the nomination. If a product (medical or otherwise) receives in-depth coverage in the
698:
a medical device became such a matter of public concern it would also be discussed in a review in the biomedical literature.
141:
332:
source without sufficient separation between the proponent and that source, but the others? The fact that the last one is
740:
716:
276:
but still total bullsh*t. Any reason why the sources in question shouldn't be considered good-old significant coverage?
774:
299:
137:
40:
755:
731:
707:
677:
633:
611:
570:
528:
491:
444:
419:
394:
376:
370:) from J pediatric Surg, but which is original research so fails MEDRS. Without that, non-notable vs non-verifiable.
349:
311:
288:
245:
225:
205:
60:
582:
academic/scientific sources in fields outside of health, that is a terrible thing, and opens WP to things like the
187:
82:
496:
74:
66:
770:
751:
727:
153:
36:
578:
538:
475:
329:
173:
618:
551:
546:
534:
321:
515:
511:
429:
364:
241:
221:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
769:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
703:
623:
607:
560:
524:
481:
440:
409:
385:
339:
307:
278:
201:
555:
519:
littered with papers that are not retracted but were dead ends, were not replicable, etc.
542:
404:
317:
673:
501:
425:
390:
372:
325:
507:
671:, yes i meant primary source rather than original resource. Thanks for correcting.
587:
537:
guideline suggests, but I'm also aware that it contradicts, to an extent, what the
237:
217:
388:, where is this in-depth coverage in the NYT, Telegraph and WaPost? Can you link?
112:
699:
668:
603:
599:
520:
436:
303:
197:
53:
743:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
719:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
432:
367:
196:
This is a medical product. No sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE
337:
magazine elected to give it coverage works in its favour in some ways.
583:
763:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
328:, the second, not so much. Certainly the Klobe source is a
598:
so I recently put a mini-essay on my userpage about it:
108:
104:
100:
172:
690:
just want to note that i agree with
Stalwart above.
749:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
725:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
186:
592:List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
777:). No further edits should be made to this page.
234:list of Technology-related deletion discussions
214:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
316:Okay, so the contention is that they aren't
232:Note: This debate has been included in the
212:Note: This debate has been included in the
600:User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources
454:
231:
211:
497:definition of PRIMARY source from MEDRS
510:of several studies. Examples include
363:- Has a single reasonable reference (
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
268:then it is likely notable. Any
1:
324:? The first is a problem for
590:hoaxes and all the stuff in
533:Yes, I'm aware of what the
320:, in addition to not being
794:
756:02:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
732:03:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
708:15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
678:14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
634:13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
612:11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
571:03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
529:02:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
492:01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
445:23:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
420:22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
395:17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
377:17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
350:13:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
312:10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
300:press release at phys.org
289:05:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
246:00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
226:00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
206:19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
766:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
61:22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
459:Additional commentary.
75:Vacuum bell (medicine)
67:Vacuum bell (medicine)
435:is a PRIMARY source.
424:I believe that what
508:combine the results
516:systematic reviews
512:literature reviews
758:
734:
657:
656:
248:
228:
785:
768:
754:
748:
746:
744:
730:
724:
722:
720:
676:
630:
628:
567:
565:
488:
486:
455:
416:
414:
393:
375:
346:
344:
285:
283:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
58:
34:
793:
792:
788:
787:
786:
784:
783:
782:
781:
775:deletion review
764:
759:
750:
739:
737:
735:
726:
715:
713:
672:
658:
626:
624:
563:
561:
484:
482:
460:
412:
410:
389:
371:
342:
340:
281:
279:
266:Washington Post
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
791:
789:
780:
779:
747:
736:
723:
712:
711:
710:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
502:primary source
462:
461:
458:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
428:meant is that
398:
397:
379:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
292:
291:
270:medical claims
258:New York Times
250:
249:
229:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
790:
778:
776:
772:
767:
761:
760:
757:
753:
752:North America
745:
742:
733:
729:
728:North America
721:
718:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:
679:
675:
670:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
635:
632:
631:
620:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
580:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
568:
557:
553:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
526:
522:
517:
513:
509:
504:
503:
498:
495:
494:
493:
490:
489:
477:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
457:
456:
446:
442:
438:
434:
431:
427:
423:
422:
421:
418:
417:
406:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
387:
383:
380:
378:
374:
369:
366:
362:
359:
358:
351:
348:
347:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
287:
286:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
230:
227:
223:
219:
215:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
199:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
765:
762:
738:
714:
695:
691:
622:
595:
588:Sokal affair
559:
500:
480:
408:
381:
360:
338:
333:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
386:Stalwart111
160:free images
579:WP:PRIMARY
539:WP:PRIMARY
476:WP:PRIMARY
330:WP:PRIMARY
326:notability
771:talk page
674:BakerStMD
577:Stalwart
426:Bakerstmd
391:BakerStMD
373:BakerStMD
262:Telegraph
238:• Gene93k
218:• Gene93k
37:talk page
773:or in a
741:Relisted
717:Relisted
619:WP:MEDRS
552:WP:MEDRS
547:WP:MEDRS
535:WP:MEDRS
433:15793724
382:Question
368:15793724
119:View log
39:or in a
596:editors
274:notable
254:Comment
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
700:Jytdog
669:jytdog
604:Jytdog
584:SCIgen
556:WP:GNG
521:Jytdog
499:: " A
437:Jytdog
361:Delete
304:Jytdog
198:Jytdog
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
629:lwart
566:lwart
543:WP:OR
487:lwart
415:lwart
405:WP:OR
345:lwart
334:based
322:MEDRS
284:lwart
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
56:Nakon
16:<
704:talk
608:talk
586:and
525:talk
441:talk
430:PMID
365:PMID
308:talk
264:and
242:talk
222:talk
202:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
602:.
514:or
384:- @
302:).
188:TWL
117:– (
52:.
706:)
696:if
692:if
625:St
610:)
562:St
527:)
483:St
443:)
411:St
341:St
318:RS
310:)
280:St
260:,
244:)
236:.
224:)
216:.
204:)
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
702:(
667:@
627:★
606:(
564:★
541:(
523:(
485:★
439:(
413:★
343:★
306:(
298:(
282:★
240:(
220:(
200:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.