Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PARSIFAL


 * 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. Policy based arguements for the keep side is basically non-existent, potential GNG source rebutted. Secret account 05:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

PARSIFAL

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No independent sources to determine notability for this study, other than a few papers which were published as a result. (Note: this page refers to a medical study, not the opera.) a13ean (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, i.e. keep or redirect. Can't hurt to redirect it to the operate if we judge it unworthy of an article.  Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Google scholar search for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner" gives 3,000 results. hgilbert (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Searching for "PARSIFAL study -Wagner -Steiner -Anthroposophical" returns 2720 results; 90% of the citations are related to the farming component of the study which is not reflected in the current article. This is a moot point though, any large scale scientific study hopefully results in multiple papers, which hopefully result in multiple citations.  What I don't see is any sources which establish the notability of this particular study.  Looking at a few other studies there's some which are clearly notable, for example Framingham Heart Study (106k google scholar results) although its article could use some work.  Others are more borderline cases, for example LEAP has 15k google scholar results, and some independent coverage.  What I don't see for this study is independent reliable sources that establish notability.  a13ean (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - given the 3 or so primary research papers there are probably 300+ citations in total. In addition there was this news article which could also be referenced to more clearly establish notability. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's actually a press release; it says "Source: Blackwell Publishing Ltd." at the bottom. I also don't think that raw citation counts establish notability for studies -- my research group has more than a dozen studies with more than 300 cites, but none of them are independently notable. a13ean (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete We aren't in the business of creating articles solely on individual studies (and many have a lot more citations) unless they have some actual claim to notability like WP:GNG. I'll also highlight that what we have here is a Waldorf School teacher creating an article based on a primary study, which makes Waldorf schools look favourable. Arbcom has already established Waldorf teachers have a conflict of interest with respect to Waldorf schools; Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education, so I think this is an open and shut case. Nyttend's statement isn't an argument and is a classic WP:NOHARM. Hgilbert's argument is a standard WP:GOOGLEHITS argument.
 * Keeping articles based on 300 cites is a strange. I will demonstrate my point:
 * This article has 5646 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
 * This has 16002 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
 * 7522 citations. Does the article have its own article? No.
 * IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you read my entire statement? It's not a comment on the contents of the article; it's simply a statement that we should redirect it if we decide that we shouldn't have an article about the study.  I didn't read the article, and as such I'm not expressing an opinion about whether it should be kept as an article about this study.  It's purely based on the title, because the title shouldn't be left as a redlink, and when we're talking about redirects, NOHARM isn't applicable.  Nyttend (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get the point, the article is only linked from here: Parsifal_(disambiguation) and here: Waldorf education. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And Atopy. --EPadmirateur (talk) 03:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, the history of this article is linked to that of the Waldorf education article; originally the latter discussed the PARSIFAL study findings, which were indeed positive toward Waldorf, quite extensively. I felt that the coverage was excessive, and created this article as a place for the fuller discussion of the study's results, thus allowing the primary article to summarize these briefly. I don't want to pile this material back into the original article, as the study results are only peripherally related to education. I don't really care whether the PARSIFAL article remains, however. People can always look at the original study. hgilbert (talk) 00:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete WikiPedia is not an academic or medical journal. If the study is notable as part of wider research then it should be included there, but it is not notable in isolation DavidTTTaylor (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * KeepI'd let this article stay.  I am NOT an expert, but from an editing standpoint, the creator's have met a MINIMUM burden for the creation of an article.  If they can not add anything, they may have to cut back and go for a stub class.johncheverly 01:41, 19 March 2013 (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.