Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Test

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Secret account 19:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Test[edit]

CNS Vital Signs Computerized Neurocognitive Test (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)

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. — Cirt (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I seem to be the last editor who was active on that article. I did a very diligent search for sources while looking for reliable, secondary sources about other neurological tests, with some of the better books at hand as I edited. This test was actually better represented in sources than some of the other tests I was looking up during the same round of editing. The article is plainly not spurious, there is notability established by sources independent of the test developers, and I have already tried to tone down the promotional tone of the article. (If I remember correctly, I added the advert tag.) That the article was created by someone who edits for a single purpose is a very good reason to be deeply skeptical of an article and to check its sources, but I'm not completely sure that that is a good reason to delete an article that currently does have some reliable sources and is about a topic that someone might legitimately want to look up (as confirmed by page traffic statistics). I'll watch for comments by other editors as this discussion continues, but my inclination is to rewrite for less promotional tone and to keep the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Keep. Would it help to spell out CNS? It's Central Nervous System. This is about a computerized test that has several sources (significant secondary coverage). I have removed the reliance on primary sources template because there is a reference section with ten or so academic journals, which is pretty good in terms of secondary coverage. Many articles that are not discussed for deletion have nowhere near that quality of ref section. I see no reason to delete this only because the person who wrote it might have had a commercial interest. It is already tagged accordingly and needs a stylistic makeover. People who have to take one of these tests and their family will want to know about this test/platform and might actually look it up.--Melody Lavender 12:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Cirt (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 00:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites (talk · contribs) you're comparing apples and oranges. This is a software topic, it's not about the medical tests. --Melody Lavender 09:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the software has only one purpose, and that is medical testing. There is only one sentence in the article discussing the software per se ("Technically, the platform runs on Windows, IOS and web environments.") and all of the rest of the content is about its medical use. The only sources in the article are medical journals or textbooks. Jytdog (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article is about the software. The text is a summary of the functional specifications of the software. Comparing the text we're discussing here to the medical tests user Rhododentrites mentioned, like ELISA, shows that there's a huge difference. It is used by almost 10,000 physicians in over 50 or so countries (data from the company's website). And there are many more publications about many aspects of this product and its use in academic journals here. Plus we don't have guidelines on software notability. I'd say a major software for neurological testing would be a good example of notable software. --Melody Lavender 14:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about what the software does and how it is used, not the software itself. There is no technical information about the software itself - the article says nothing about what language it is coded in, any algorithms it runs, even about its various versions and how they are different, not anything about its interface. The article is entirely about how the software is used. If we followed your reasoning, Melody, we would treat articles about drugs as "chemistry" not medicine. It makes no sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can agree it's about what the software does. The individual tests in this battery of tests and the principles they are based on existed before the software. The software just puts them in a different form. I agree, I and most other people on this planet think that pharmaceuticals are chemicals. Still, we can treat them as medical treatment. I'm not trying to move the article we're discussing out of the realm of medicine, just giving this discussion a reasonable perspective.--Melody Lavender 15:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hooray! Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) x2, replying to original message in response to my !vote: @Melody Lavender: This is a software topic, it's not about the medical tests. In your first response you repeatedly talked about a test, (This is about a computerized test / People who have to take one of these tests and their family will want to know), so let's not act like it's ridiculous to talk about it in the context of other tests if that's part of the rationale you're using to keep it. We don't have specific notability guidelines for software, hence WP:PRODUCT/WP:GNG. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It meets WP:GNG, and WP:PRODUCT basically says we should create an article about the company and move it there. There is nothing in those guidelines that forbids us to use our common sense. The product can be more notable than the company. It's not ridiculous to compare it to other tests, I didn't imply it was ridiculous. It does require abstract thinking. You can't compare it to those tests because the individual tests in this battery of tests and the principles they are based on existed before the software. The software puts them in a different form. --Melody Lavender 15:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched pubmed for any literature reviews or systematic reviews discussing the research that has been done with this product. There are 27 primary sources, but no secondary sources. (search for reviews is here; search for any articles is here). Since all policies and guidelines urge us to base articles on secondary sources, and there are no secondary sources describing the use of this product, nor its safety and efficacy, nor how important or unimportant it is in the field in which it used, we can't say much about it without doing WP:OR; we have no guide to assign appropriate weight to any claims about it or criticisms of it. The article seems to be WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're all secondary, unless one of the authors was involved in the development process. Primary sources about a software are the manual, func specs, the website of the company, press releases, and similar writings. All the sources you're citing are secondary, and they prove that the product is in use to a notable extent. You can not use these resources to write much about the software, all they do is provide a documentation of it's notability and some of its applications. The sources you are giving can only be considered primary for the experiments they are used in. Take this first (so random) result of the search you performed: [1] - this is a secondary source for the fact that the software is used for neuropsychological testing. But it's a primary source for the medical study on cognitive functioning in bipolar disorder. Jytdog (talk · contribs), maybe that's what confuses you?--Melody Lavender 16:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions all 27 articles in pubmed are primary sources. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm taking you naively serious here and assume you really are not joking and playing Peppermint Patty on us. The MedRS description isn't any different from a regular description of primary sources which you can look up in any encyclopedia. MedRS example: Filling the testube = writing the program.--Melody Lavender 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is not any encyclopedia. this is wiikipedia and "primary source" and "secondary source" for health related content are defined in MEDRS. when you signed up for a user account you agreed to abide by WP's policies and guidelines as part of the terms of use. they form the basis for rational discussion here. Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now we have the final proof that Monty Python's parrot really isn't dead. You are kidding, aren't you? And for the terms of use aspect: Hello Patty! Funny. You can't be serious. The same thing as with the MedRes policy: Maybe you should read them. Might help or might not help. --Melody Lavender 06:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and, done here. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't try to pretend you ever started to discuss, it's all on record. Okay, maybe this was your attempt. You can't be serious. --Melody Lavender 06:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see what any of your last several comments add to this discussion aside from making it about the editor rather than the subject. You said all the sources are secondary; Jytdog pointed to MEDRS to say they're primary. Then you started to call him/her Peppermint Patty and made Monty Python references as a response. Are you trying to say MEDRS doesn't apply, that you've reviewed the sources and they're secondary based on MEDRS...?--— Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion between me and this editor has been going on for longer than just these few exchanges on this page. The editor has admitted before that he or she has no interest in this discussion but started "talking" again here. The editor is obviously still not interested in this discussion because the answers aren't to the point. I doubt that my postings were even read by this editor. Medical software is obviously a new topic with few precedents on Wikipedia. Primary sources are described in the MedRes policy in the same way as everywhere else. This editor thinks that the word "review" in the description on the policy page is some sort of special definition, a definition that applies only to Wikipedia. I don't think that is true. But the editor then takes it one step further and calls all, all other references primary that do not have the word review in the abstract. This might well be a sort of "group norm" in the medical community here on Wikipedia, even if it is, it's a misunderstanding. So much for the terminology issue. If we could get beyond the terminology issue, we could discuss the real issue: what can we accept as an adequate source for the notability of a medical software product? I think the editor might not be able to go beyond the assumption that the physicians are carrying out an experiment on this software as if the software were a laboratory rat. Which I don't think is true. We are trying to talk about unchartered territory. The editor doesn't want to acknowledge that and thinks I should just take the MedRES policy in this weird literal sense which I think is funny because a program is not a lab rat or at the very least not the lab rat in those sources. It's equivalent to the needle the lab rats are injected with. I unfortunately think that's funny and I tend to become cynical, obviously, so I'd better stop. Even if I stay out of such discussions, the problem behind it will not go away. There will be other medical software articles.--Melody Lavender 21:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
that is not accurate Melody. I lost interest in discussing the topic further with you on my Talk page. Medical software is neither new nor rare. You do not understand MEDRS nor how we use it for health related topics, and are not interested in learning. I have no interest in arguing with you. Jytdog (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about books? There do appear to be practitioners' handbooks, which are also identified by WP:MEDRS as reliable secondary sources, that mention this particular test. A Google Books search turns up several of those, including one that is already used as a further reading reference in the article under discussion. Some instruments are discussed more in practitioners' handbooks than they are in review articles, but both kinds of reliable secondary sources are okay for sourcing a Wikipedia article on a medical topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Books are an even better source.--Melody Lavender 17:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some of those books look like decent secondary or tertiary sources, yes. others, no. some are off target (having found "CNS" and "vital signs" separately) Jytdog (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The technical discussions above seem to indicate good reasons for it. In my summary:
  1. "Not about medical test... is a software" is a lame defence, because as the article explicitly describes that it "is used to measure brain function" which makes it succintly clear that it a biological/medical test. It does not mention the nature of the software, instead dwells directly on the medical applications, making it unambiguously a medical article. Its category finally then gives away.
  2. The write-up itself is incredibly poor (in spite of the extensive energy put up in denfending it), and overlooks [WP:MOS]] and [WP:CS]] almost entirely. It is merely a set of list about the test. Chhandama (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CNS_Vital_Signs_Computerized_Neurocognitive_Test&oldid=1144346510"