Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metaplacebo


 * 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  21:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Metaplacebo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism, completely original research with conflict of interest from the creator. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 01:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete as a nn neologism. JJL (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Besides being COI, it also fails to meet WP:V, as seen on the talk page, were a search finds no articles or secondary cites of this so called "new" term. Medicellis (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:NEO. Lets get a some more deletes in here and through some snowballs.--Pmedema (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. JFW | T@lk  05:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:OR, per WP:V, per WP:RS, per WP:NEO, per WP:BAD, per WP:DUCK ..... LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I forgot, per WP:COI. I think I got 'em all now. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or transfer to wikitionary The source article has a DOI to Medical Hypotheses, a peer-reviewed journal. The terms metaplacebo (or meta-placebo) do appear to be in use, though only in a specialist field. Wikipedia / Wikitionary need to cover such topics. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: although Medical Hypotheses is indeed a peer-reviewed journal, it contains hypotheses, which in this case are basically opinions without evidence supporting them. For example, you'll find "evidence" in this journal that constipation is caused by defecation in a non-squatting position. . --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Medical Hypotheses is not a peer-reviewed journal. See publisher's website. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * An interesting point, Tim. I had previously looked at the text "The section "Articles in Press" contains peer reviewed accepted articles to be published in this journal." (in . However, this is probably just a Science Direct standard footer of some sort. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the articles undergo "editorial review". From my experience of this in other journals I'd say the journal editor deals mostly with style and comprehensibility. Peer review on the other hand deals with accuracy and importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2008 (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.