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. Nakon 22:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum bell (medicine)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a medical product. No sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure I agree with the logic of the nomination. If a product (medical or otherwise) receives in-depth coverage in the New York Times, Telegraph and Washington Post then it is likely notable. Any medical claims 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 notable but still total bullsh*t. Any reason why the sources in question shouldn't be considered good-old significant coverage? St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 (press release at phys.org). Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the contention is that they aren't RS, in addition to not being MEDRS? The first is a problem for notability, the second, not so much. Certainly the Klobe source is a WP:PRIMARY source without sufficient separation between the proponent and that source, but the others? The fact that the last one is based 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 magazine elected to give it coverage works in its favour in some ways. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has a single reasonable reference (PMID 15793724) from J pediatric Surg, but which is original research so fails MEDRS. Without that, non-notable vs non-verifiable. BakerStMD 17:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - @Stalwart111, where is this in-depth coverage in the NYT, Telegraph and WaPost? Can you link? BakerStMD 17:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. WP:OR 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? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that what Bakerstmd meant is that PMID 15793724 is a PRIMARY source. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary.
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 WP:PRIMARY 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. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] definition of PRIMARY source from MEDRS: " A primary source 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 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 combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews 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 littered with papers that are not retracted but were dead ends, were not replicable, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I'm aware of what the WP:MEDRS guideline suggests, but I'm also aware that it contradicts, to an extent, what the WP:PRIMARY (WP:OR) 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 WP:MEDRS 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 WP:MEDRS 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 WP:GNG in any other context? Yes. But it falls under the umbrella of "medicine" and so those sources are unintentionally disqualified. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Stalwart WP:PRIMARY 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 academic/scientific sources in fields outside of health, that is a terrible thing, and opens WP to things like the SCIgen and Sokal affair hoaxes and all the stuff in List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. 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 editors so I recently put a mini-essay on my userpage about it: User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] 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 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 WP:MEDRS. 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. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commentary.

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 WP:PRIMARY 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. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

definition of PRIMARY source from MEDRS: " A primary source 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 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 combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews 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 littered with papers that are not retracted but were dead ends, were not replicable, etc. Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of what the WP:MEDRS guideline suggests, but I'm also aware that it contradicts, to an extent, what the WP:PRIMARY (WP:OR) 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 WP:MEDRS 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 WP:MEDRS 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 WP:GNG in any other context? Yes. But it falls under the umbrella of "medicine" and so those sources are unintentionally disqualified. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart WP:PRIMARY 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 academic/scientific sources in fields outside of health, that is a terrible thing, and opens WP to things like the SCIgen and Sokal affair hoaxes and all the stuff in List of experimental errors and frauds in physics. 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 editors so I recently put a mini-essay on my userpage about it: User:Jytdog#NPOV_part_1:_secondary_sources. Jytdog (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 WP:MEDRS. 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. St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@jytdog, yes i meant primary source rather than original resource. Thanks for correcting. BakerStMD 14:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

just want to note that i agree with Stalwart above. if 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 if a medical device became such a matter of public concern it would also be discussed in a review in the biomedical literature. Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 23 April 2015 (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.