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. Consensus is WP:TOOSOON thus delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metatextbook of Medicine (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)

A "Metatextbook" in development. There is one source (in the Deutsche Ärzteblatt) in a respected journal (cited as "recension" an incorrect translation of the German "Rezension", meaning "review"), but strangely enough, this review is written by the same person who established this "Metatextbook". In the absence of any independent sources, this fails WP:GNG, hence: delete. Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume is right in his understandings of the way my product is connected to the scientific publication systems. My resource is not founded by any third party or affiliated with a research organization and so on. It is not PUBLISHED-AND-PERISHED but it is improvingly developed with enthusiasm or one might say, something like agape. The publication model could not be that of a primary publication of a scientific resource (It had gone to BMC Med Res Methodol in my opinion at a further-developed stage), it got a secondary literature-type Publication of a resource description like a Book, a synergistic description of an item by the original promoter and the journals editorial team. Without peer review, this is a quite fast-track publication, which of course gives no impact factor counts, which are of no relevance to a practicing physician like me. The Publication in DÄ hasnt been retracted, so it is the valid literature description of this resource. DÄ has 400.000 readers in germany, and all physicians receive it, so its the best way to tell my peers what i have created. There is nothing 'strangely enough' if someone sets his or her real name under all his statements, there is no misconduct, no copied texts, no fraud, no companies opinion in behind, only the one stupid actor who did the programming, searching selecting indexing - and promotion of an essetially free and worthwhile resource. Since anybody has made the experience that publishing wikipedia articles has something in common with performing a heavy cognitive behaviour autotherapy session as breivig did, no one would take over the part of describing a resource which is cited less than 50 times - or enhancing his statements by obvious facts which are not worth publishing at 1500 USD - his work would be erased immediately. The german wikipedia is a hopeless heaven, maybe, because it is our common character to cut every grasshalm in our garden to exactly the same length and to enhance the overall appearance by assembling an ensemble of GartenzwerGartenzwerge, the latter watching out the scene like suricats (simply to tell any possible offender: the owner has no style appeal, burglary is not worth effort). It is a hypothesis to check out whether other populations feel something like editorial enthusiasm or if they are simply the judge actors in the of structure-vs.-progress trial. last, my transliteration of german "Rezension" was consistent with this, Webtranslator, sure i didnt check but did it from a spontaneous feeling of correctness. Think the right genre of the publication is that of a 'critique'. If Guillaume transliterates to review, he doenst even know how a systematic review on similar resources could be written under a 500 words limit ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 10:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the above or its relevance to the present discussion, so I just would like to note that 1/ Nobody accused you or anybody else of misconduct or fraud, or anything else untoward and 2/ I am baffled why you link my userid to Günter Guillaume (not a compliment, in my eyes, given that this guy by his betrayal brought down the much admired Willy Brandt). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- anybody is free to choose his nick, these are my peers. --Ossip Groth (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you had linked to Guillaume, that could be construed as innocent, but by linking explicitly to one specific person called Guillaume, you're apparently implying something and I'm not sure I like what I think you are saying. Please read WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL, which are important policies here on the English WP (and there's bound to be something similar on the German WP, too). Please be aware that further personal attacks will be reported to WP:ANI. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- might be this one Guillaume_Apollinaire to be taken as a better example. Your criticism was anything but nice, so imagine, what would this man do ? --Ossip Groth (talk) 22:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Possible Keep I'm not aware of any other index to open access scientific review articles, tough they are of course included in any index to open access articles. As conventional publication, ISI used to publish a separate index of scientific reviews, made by separating out the review articles from Web of Science. The ability to search online by adding the keyword "review" more or less removed the usefulness for conventionally prepared indexes. But the keyword is not added to open access indexes with any reliability, so such an index might be quite valuable. I would , however, like some better third party evidence of its actual importance. Might I suggest the best way to establish this topic might be to first write an article on it for the German Wikipedia -- I'd have no hesitation about including it here if they find it notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--- german article just finished --Ossip Groth (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 03:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →TSU ^tp* 06:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable, possibly a matter of WP:TOOSOON. This is a project under development, and it does not appear to have attracted any notice by independent third parties as required for inclusion in Wikipedia. Everything found at Google is self-referential, not independent. Nothing at all found at Google News Archive except this article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't see what the presence or absence of an article in the German Wikipedia (especially one recently created by the author of the project, and lacking any independent sources) has to do with it. We need to evaluate this subject by the criterion of notability, and it currently fails that criterion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2012 (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.