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. MBisanz ^talk 20:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity in meta-analysis[edit]

Gravity in meta-analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has only one external source, T. Gee, and questionable notability. It has been prodded by two editors, but both prods were recently removed. The article's creator Tgee1963 has been notified of the AFD. Plastikspork (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with meta-analysis. Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions: (1) Is there some codified Wikipedia rule that says articles should have more than one external source? I think such a rule would be unwise; I can't see why it's grounds for deletion. (2) On what grounds do you regard this as being of questionable notability? You've merely made an assertion, here on this page. I find nothing in the article's discussion page on that point. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answers: (1) Yes. It's WP:N. Note that it says articles should have more than one external source, but not that articles need to have more than one reliable source. (2) I understand that but the question is who has the burden of proof: the person who says it isn't notable, or the person who says it is? Again there's Wikipedia policy on that, which is WP:BURDEN. That policy says unreferenced material should be cut, so the burden of proof is on the person who says it is notable to provide verifiable references from reliable sources to prove their case.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The general notability guideline says only that "(m)ultiple sources are generally preferred." Also, I think that this should move to Gravity (meta-analysis) as a standard disambiguation title. I have no opinion on the merit of the article itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with gravitation. I don't think there's enough here to warrant a separate article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is apparently about some sort of weighting technique in statistical analysis. It has nothing to do with physics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with meta-analysis... oops. I still don't think there's enough here to warrant a separate article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If I read the dif's correctly, the PROD's were removed by an established editor for whom I have a lot of respect. He also is rewriting this to make sense out of it. If it read as it does now, I'd have understood better what the article was about and not PRODed. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Keep. I originally added a Prod2 after having been unable to find any Gsholar hits, I think I used Gravity and "social science" as search terms. Repeating the search with "Gravity in Meta-Analysis" returns more hits. Closer examination reveals that there exists a so-called "gravity equation" in trade theory, see here p2 absolutely unrelated to meta-studies, but the trade theory papers incidentally also carry out meta-analysis. I concluded that I cannot find evidence of general accepted use of this concept. Another paper could be a hit here, I dont have full text access. One paper has been published on the topic, which is inherently noteworthy. I would like to see at least two papers to support that other than the author use this concept. Just because I could not find anything in the about 15 minutes I spent on this, is of course no proof that it does not exist. Unless more sources appear I would say delete. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per the expert ministrations of Melcombe. This is no longer the same article as the one I tagged for PROD. (It is no longer an OR-esque essay.) More sources would be preferable. And it should be moved to Gravity (meta-analysis), not merged. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete persuaded by delete arguments. Dlohcierekim 14:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I note that a Google Scholar search now yields 1 journal-published article and 1 online paper referencing the original article, with none of the authors including the original author, which I think is quite good for only a few years. But the suggested move would be good. Melcombe (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific, references please. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Lukacik, Marek, Thomas, Ronald L., Aranda, Jacob V. A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Oral Zinc in the Treatment of Acute and Persistent Diarrhea Pediatrics 2008 121: 326-336 possibly at [1] and [2] Melcombe (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced. The "Hospitals without Doctors" (here only refers to to Gee's paper, I cannot see that the paper seeks to apply or even discuss some sort of "outlier pruning" of studies. I'm really not sure that the paper is peer-reviewed, could be self-published (?). My library does not have online access to the other article (PEDIATRICS Vol. 121 No. 2 February 2008, pp. 326-336 (doi:10.1542/peds.2007-0921), I'm with a tech institution. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that paper (which might be something in preparation?) only includes Gee in the "Bibliography" without mentioning it. Strange that you can't see the Pediatrics article online as I can, and I'm not with anything medical or similar. I think I am allowed to quote a short part where Gee is mentioned ... "Another more recent approach proposed jackknife resampling to measure a concept termed “gravity.” In any meta-analysis, <snip> Gee proposed that jackknife resampling could be used to examine study influence and detect outlier studies. " ... and this is followed by a short summary, much as in the article here. Also, the paper does report some calculated values of "gravity", so it does seem to be actually being used. Melcombe (talk) 16:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed my vote Power.corrupts (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree, the single reference appears to have a very weak citation count. The number of citations is a standard method of measuring notability. The weight to place on each measure is, coincidentally, a subject in meta-analysis. I would think that an article on statistics would aspire to have more than one source. Plastikspork (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term "gravity" in this context is a neologism proposed by Gee. From our guideline "To support ... an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term". From my searching, I found only Gee's article as a source. This is only a single reference proposed by a single person. The reference was written in 2005. There does not appear to have been any widespread uptake of this term amongst the "statistics community". Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the author might be talking about something else that may be obviously notable, but I don't know what. I have the feeling I've seen this in the context of some other topic. I would give it a weak keep. §FreeRangeFrog 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gee lists his article and one using the technique. From admittedly limited research, I cannot find any other article that uses the technique. Various articles mention the technique in order to motivate some meta-analysis technique of their own. This does not seem to be a mainstream technique. I also think mention of the technique could easily be integrated into the article on meta-analysis. Mark Durst (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mark Durst. Salih (talk) 07:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Axl and Mark Durst. Neologism. Ddawkins73 (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit inclined to say Keep on the grounds that this concept addresses a question that needs to get asked. Does anyone know of other articles on concepts that address this question? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may need asking, but we can't ask it. The thing to establish is whether this concept is notable. The article's lack of sources suggest otherwise. Ddawkins73 (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable subject; original research; only two possible primary sources exist. When secondary sources become available, it can be re-created. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.