Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ossip Groth (talk | contribs) at 17:01, 4 June 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April

Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine selected bibliography 2013 April (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not encyclopaedic content, but a bibliography on extremely obscure subject, which seems very much original research. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2013 (UTC) WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE collection of non-information. Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles."

Source: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_articles

Inclusion criteria for wp are met.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the fact it's not Wikisource content doesn't make it Wikipedia content. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This argument has a strong intrinsic logic, but it is not content-related.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not encyclopedia material. The scope and the search terms are arbitrary, as is the period. This is useless for WP purposes. I also have to wonder whether the author, who is advocating for keeping own article here, is just fishing for publications by assigning an ISBN number to a database dump. Finally, as a search of a single database this looks scarily like a path to WP:COPYVIO.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope and search terms are arbitrary The author's work is to decide what the bibliography should cover, and the search terms are not arbitrary, they are those which the author used to run the search. The period is monthly, if one looks exactly, it is the actual possible month to be published on may 31th. It is not a database dump - the dump has 5200, the personally filtered load is 0965. So, there is no copyright violation; Abstracts are not included - this could be cv.
  • This category contains for example these items, which have a similarity to this one because they are subjective bibliographies:

Bibliography of ecology

List of important publications in chemistry

List_of_important_publications_in_computer_science

List_of_important_publications_in_medicine - even this survived.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but with regards to this sort of thing, that you mention, "Wikipedia articles on list of important publications in this sort of thing" contain a list of publicatios which themselves have or at least have potential to have Wikipedia articles on them. Also, "chemistry", "computer science" and "medicine" are all very broad subjects. This is just a list of papers that don't have Wikipedia articles or apparently any potential, and on a very obscure subject area, "Fibrosis and related Concepts in Organ Diseases, Tumor Biology and Regenerative Medicine" which itself is redlinked. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS if this is the output for April 2013, I'm not sure I can wait for the episodes for May and June. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not encyclopedic content. There are criteria for lists and this does not meet them; for example, entries in this list are not important/notable based on secondary sources. -- Scray (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • High Scary, nice to see you. This is a list of papers which entered pubmed in april 2013, most of which is primary scientific work, of course, scientific work is not important/notable per se. And tell me, how should 6-week-old papers get mentioned in the secondary literature unless someone put them on twitter, or into the news media, cell for example...
personal attack redacted per original editor's intent expressed below
--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you redact that personal attack on Barney. -- Scray (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did so but got edit conflict.
--Ossip Groth (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done the redaction for you, as you suggest you intended. -- Scray (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So now we have it from Ossip Groth that the pieces on this list are not notable. So what we have is a list of non-notable items whose notability cannot be established by this same logic.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is basically the output of a pubmed search, and that doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. I question how useful this would be on Wikipedia. Anyone who might benefit from this article would already know how to perform this search themselves and would not search here for such specialized content anyway, they would go to pubmed surely. I would also comment that comparison with other articles like "list of important publications in so and so" could be argued to be invalid since these articles contain "important publications", and this just seems to be raw output of a search. Lesion (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I would add that the layout is poor and makes no attempt to follow MOS guidelines. The wording of the content that isn't the search items themselves is odd..."The search has been run with the author's application at http://www.kidney.de" (self promotion?), "Resource migrated from wikisource, is as encyclopedic as the other lists of the choosen category (see below)" (this comment would have been better placed on the talkpage, it is not encyclopedic). I am left with a strong feeling of possible OR and WP:COI (the content seems to be promotion of "the author" and the program used). Ossip Groth, please have a glance at especially the second policy if you were already not aware of it. Lesion (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a) It is 965/5200 of the output. On a 12 months perspective, it shriks-off 50.000 citations. The humanized result is interdisciplinary and contains some ischemia-reperfusion stuff as well, so it gives good ideas form the nephrology point of view. It is no raw output, sure, output is not tagged (no problem by my software which runs other things) to more nephrology, more oncology, more tgf beta, not concept-related but retrieved in search because of the wide overlap.
  • b) the layout is designed to give a readable list of citations since standard wp style is totally unreadable (it does not differ from standard citation styles but it is unreadable). Any changes wanted make a 20 min edit in my visual basic program (data not shown) and a run of 5 min until upped. Some hint on the methods used (who would run a 5000 item search on ncbi pubmed, and copypaste or by what means ever 1000 citations ??????) is good scientific practice. The stupid line resource migrated from... went into the text after del.
  • c) since the original version is published in print (so first, anchored to wsource) and this mirrored version is a gift to mankind all data which are in the official book are reflected here.
  • d) if someone comes to the opinion that i promote own work i could argue that this bibliography promotes the work of 965 groups.
  • e) it is somewhat more intelligent to write by ip via proxy from somewhat-more abroad than i am located or by a bunch of dissociated personalities than to write under free-name, but there is no regulation that the latter should not be allowed.
  • f) if anybody is concerned with the question how one could improve things in an environment which is non-supporting at all, he or she too, would spend the 20$€ for the 2.5 GB with full traffic and get things running.
  • g) I will slightly cut the article to its contents, others dont say from which shoeboxes and usbs they scratched their references.

seconds. --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The main difference between e.g. List_of_important_publications_in_medicine and this article is that the former is much shorter, and seems to be populated with landmark papers or works by historically important people. By what method has the search been reduced from 5200 to 965? From your explanation above, I think you have hand-searched through the hits that were generated from the initial search to select what you consider important. Is that OR? And these are from April 2013...are you intending to make more of these articles or is this a one-off project? I note that this content was proposed for deletion on wikisource...is this your main motivation for creating this wikipedia article? I also note that you previously created pages on wikipedia about some of the programs or projects you are involved in/created, and that some of these have been deleted (e.g. Metatextbook of medicine). Is this article an attempt for you to advertise your program after those articles were deleted? I ask these Qs because I am honestly confused about why you put this content on wikipedia, what purpose is it supposed to have? Besides a gift to all mankind (call me ungrateful). We are here to write an encyclopedia...and this content just seems out of place, even alongside other pages in Category:Lists_of_publications_in_science. Lesion (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The May 2013 issue is parsed at item 3000/4200 and it will be ready tomorrow. One article says, Cimetidine inhibits Myeloid derived dendritic cells, another, a peptide from Osteopontin shrinks Oxalosis calcifications. It is useless to succumb the stuff on amazing, WP is a resource where people are expected to seek for information contained in bibliographies like that Epithelial–mesenchymal_transition has been viewed 7477 times in the last 30 days.. Theres no problem into upping a set of pdfs or better-operating htmls on external servers. The motivation to make a List article defaulted from wsource. A 1000-items bibliography is not expected to get people googling around what the author generally does. It is a nice thing to get something accepted.

--Ossip Groth (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I take Ossip Groth's last point, "It is a nice thing to get something accepted", to confirm that s/he thinks of WP articles as refereed publications for which s/he can gain professional or personal rewards. This is consistent with the assignment of an ISBN number to a WP article, which would also allow commercial gain (though the author does not claim such intent at this time). But perhaps I am being too harsh, and lack of clarity is the issue.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an encyclopedia. There is already a thing called "Google Scholar" to serve the purpose of this article. Solomon7968 (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the merits. Not to suggest that some of these papers might not end up in articles as sources, of course - but we neither need nor want a bibliography to contain them. And, at 965 entries, this list is bloated to the point of uselessness. I concur that it is nice to get something accepted - but that has emphatically not happened here, nor is there any personal glory or credit if it were accepted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both the ISBN and the reference to "the author" Ossip Groth has been happy to remove, so this comment is retrospective. If I assume good faith, maybe s/he just pasted the article straight from wikisource, where perhaps reference to an author and an ISBN might have been more appropriate (I don't know, I don't use wikisource much), but in addition to Truth or Consequences' comment above about the ISBN, I am fairly sure we should never refer to the editor who has written the wikipedia article in the article space itself. Wikipedia articles do not conceptually have a single author with copyrights and intellectual rights over the content, even if only one editor has written the page, and then no further editors ever edit after this-- which is an unlikely scenario. As soon as you click "save page" the content is no longer yours- you have waived all rights to it and it is CC-BY-SA or whatever. Read this, it's written right below the save page button for legal reasons. Lesion (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General review of the discussion and proposal of a namespace bib:

- There is essential no-one who supports the basic idea to have some special supplemental oligotopic bibliography which could be related to some 50 wikipedia articles with topic overlap. If we subtract the useless comments concerning self-representative work, cross-site linking, sensitivity-specificity characteristics of the example bibliography, and some emotional expressions which result from other discussions, the following valid arguments could be extracted:

  • Non-encyclopedic (at least 3 times)
  • Users would run PubMed searches on-their own
  • we neither need nor want a bibliography(...)

Correct me if I should lie wrong, but the essence of the critique is very, very weak. A bibliographic supplemental material which is linkable to other wiki articles is per definition non-encyclopedic and, as shown in my first post, WP wants bibliographis: :'A Bibliography page presents a list of relevant books, journal or other references for a subject area. Bibliographies are useful for expanding Further Reading topics for Summary style articles. The bibliography contains a description of search terms used and time-range applied so users get inspired to make some use of them. We do not want... The problem in democracy and in the application of democratic methods lies in the fact of representativeness; whereas many discussants are in medical topics, no-one goes into the concrete theme and discusses the roc of the one bibliography. So, the basic field is not represented, most are wp-editors familial with deciding where wp ends and where anarchy starts. (My undedited wp got 1GB spam until I flagged localsettings.php by-invitation only). Standard wikipedia readers would not invest their time into discussions like this because 95% of similar discussions concern single off-topic subjects like 30-bed hospitals on the moon, not landmark topics like this which reflects the technical vs. social property of wikipedia to get enhanced in a way it did not develop by itself until now, and it is the basic question if it is reasonable to stop a landmark complementation by these poor arguments supplied even by the interested community just by counting pros minus cons and dividing by pros which gives not resistive index, not 100% but infinity. There is no one who discusses the implication of enabling bibliographies which are more than 1:1 content matches of a wp article and would find their place in the read.more section- what to do with stubs, with more personal bibliographies (all i needed for my thesis on xyz including Laemmli 1970), how to rate items (selected by title... my loved-one... outstanding reference, cited 2400 times), how to understrike validity and how to decribe lack of coverage. No-one discusses what other people did and where those solutions reach their methodological limits, e.g. example mendely-group, which gives the possibility to construct topical usergroups with a collective on-topic paper collection, which is a nice and compatible idea and the unscientific bias that papers have to be available as pdf documents, and a collection limit of 2gb which means 10k items per user (importing one is at about 2min...), if 28.5MB-long PDFs are excluded, not to say my metatextbook collection of 14k topics which I do not think to list anywhere but on my server: Content-stability is one argument, being too stupid to program a working bot in a language i understand is the other more-appropriate one. And running bulk edits on that scale with monthly updates is somewhat impractical.

Which solutions could be proposed to enhance wp by including multi-topic bibliographies ? As with other ressources (like wikipathways.org), a dedicated site could setup. wikigraphy.org is gone, wikigraphy.de is mine since three days :))) so the brand is secured. Indeed, a dedicated namespace bib:bla_bla_bla would suffice to create things like that. A set of regulations should be applied, e.g. using a companion page of those citations which were disselected by editing users, which would maintain content-stability without disenabling content-restructuring and content-addition. --Ossip Groth (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Fibrosis_and_related_Concepts_in_Organ_Diseases,_Tumor_Biology_and_Regenerative_Medicine_selected_bibliography_2013_April&oldid=558314347"