- 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. Sandstein 12:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The Friedmann-Balayla Model
- The Friedmann-Balayla Model ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article based on a concept described in a single Journal paper (that has not been cited by any others). References within this article, apart from the reference pointing directly to the paper, do not mention "The Friedmann-Balayla Model" and in fact, they pre-date the publication of the Journal paper by many years. The GNG is definitely not met. (Note - improvement tags have been removed repeatedly and a PROD based on notability was declined by the page author) Exemplo347 ( talk) 19:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a rigorous scientific and epidemiological paper, published in a scientific, peer-reviewed medical journal. The model is new and innovative, and addresses a concern that is raised by years of medical literature. It is an important addition to the zeitgeist, and it should be commended as such Tedmfm.
- Nothing that you have said addresses the concerns that I have raised, both here at this discussion and on the talk page of the article. Please can you respond to my specific concerns, because they are related to Wikipedia's policies. Exemplo347 ( talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
It is a new paper precisely because there was a need for the concept herein developed. As a consequence, all the references will be from the past, and won't cite the model. The fact it hasn't been cited has to do with it being so new. Similarly, the fact it is peer-reviewed means it has undergone strict and rigorous scientific scrutiny from the community, and it is NOT self-published. - Tedmfm. —Preceding undated comment added 20:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- "Self Published" means exactly that - the journal paper was written by the people who came up with this scientific model, so that's a self-published source. It doesn't fulfil the requirement under the
General Notability Guideline that I've already suggested that you read, but I don't think you have. Specifically, the GNG calls for Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 20:54, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think your definition of "self-published" is correct. Self-publishing means you publish your own article by yourself. i.e without an independent editorial house, scientific journal, rigurous peer-review. In that case, the findings have no reliability and questioned validity. The Friedmann-Balayla model is different. While you are correct that the eponym comes from the authors who submitted the article, the peer review gives credence to the findings, which now make part of the medical literature. I have read the GNG and do not believe this article is in violation of the guidelines on the topics you have brought forth -
Tedmfm —Preceding
undated comment added 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh dear - Independent Reliable Sources (plural) Exemplo347 ( talk) 21:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think your definition of "self-published" is correct. Self-publishing means you publish your own article by yourself. i.e without an independent editorial house, scientific journal, rigurous peer-review. In that case, the findings have no reliability and questioned validity. The Friedmann-Balayla model is different. While you are correct that the eponym comes from the authors who submitted the article, the peer review gives credence to the findings, which now make part of the medical literature. I have read the GNG and do not believe this article is in violation of the guidelines on the topics you have brought forth -
Tedmfm —Preceding
undated comment added 21:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Exemplo347 (
talk) 09:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - An academic paper was published in the Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine on 23 January 2017, the same day this article was created. While an article has been published in a peer-review journal, there has not yet been any review of this work that has been undertaken of this paper by other authors, such as asked for by WP:MEDRS. So there is nothing presented to suggest this theory itself is notable at this point. Drchriswilliams ( talk) 19:42, 29 January 2017 (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.