Talk:European Sleep Apnea Database/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deleted information about ESADA

The information I had included (which was deleted WITHOUT TALKING - just deleted in a cavalier manner - followed by a threat) had been added to demonstrate the reputability of the ESADA coordinators and to answer the talk page question: where is the ESADA located - by showing the ESRS publicatioons which discuss the ESADA in reputable venues. But again, the deletions of this relevant material, without any talk page comments, was followed with a reputational threat ('a bad thing').MaynardClark (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MaynardClark it is great to want to expand the article and save it, but you need to avoid WP:PROMO and find independent sources that show the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic. Publications by people working on the database, long quotes from them, etc, do not show that the subject is notable. Please find something like a newspaper report discussing its signficance, or a review article by people who are not involved, discussing it. If you cannot find such sources, you should hang up your hat, as that is what is needed. Please, please do not WP:EDITWAR, ever, over content. come to talk and discuss it! if we cannot agree there are ways to get other voices involved. But the effort has to start here, or none of those avenues will be available to us - they will just send us back here to try. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

well done, coming to Talk finally! first of all, people get reverted all the time - lots of editors work here, and they often don't agree, and discussion is how we work things out. complaining about "cavalier" is the absolutely wrong "head" to have. Just come to talk and discuss! please do see my notes above, about the kind of sources and content that is needed. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

finally you seem to have ignored the link to WP:BRD that i provided in my edit notes. please do read that essay - it is very very useful. (and yes, edit warring is a bad behavior and can you blocked if you violate 3RR. edit warring is a "bad thing".) Jytdog (talk) 06:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me provide a few - NINE (9) - refereed journals which cite that one 2013 accomplishment, the relationship between OSA (obstructive sleep apnea) and impaired glucose metabolism/control:

• Pillai A, Warren G, Gunathilake W et al. Effects of sleep apnea severity on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes prior to continuous positive airway pressure treatment. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(9): 945-949. doi: 10.1089/dia.2011.000.
• Grimaldi D, Beccuti G, Touma C, et al. Association of Obstructive Sleep Apnea in rapid eye movement sleep with reduced glycemic control in type 2 diabetes: therapeutic interchange. Diabetes Care. 2014 Feb.
• CPAP improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetics with sleep apnea. American Academy of Sleep Medicine. Monday, June 3, 2013. http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=3932
• J Cardiometab Syndr. 2009 Spring;4(2):89-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-4572.2008.00046.x. Drager LF1, Queiroz EL, Lopes HF, Genta PR, Krieger EM, Lorenzi-Filho G. Obstructive sleep apnea is highly prevalent and correlates with impaired glycemic control in consecutive patients with the metabolic syndrome. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19614795
• Foster et al. Diabetes Care 2009, 32:1017-9 [PMID:19279303].
• Kent BD, et al. Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence and Control in Sleep-Disordered Breathing: The European Sleep Apnea Cohort (ESADA) Study. Chest. 2014(October 1);146(4):982-990. doi:10.1378/chest.13-2403 PMID: 24831859

• Obstructive sleep apnea aggravates glycemic control across the continuum of glucose homeostasis.Steiropoulos P, Papanas N, Bouros D, Maltezos E. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Jul 15; 182(2):286.
• Diabetes in obstructive sleep apnea. [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010]
• Diabetes, sleep apnea, and glucose control. [Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010]
• Obstructive sleep apnoea and hypertension: the ESADA study. McEvoy RD. Eur Respir J. 2014 Oct;44(4):835-8. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00129614. No abstract available.

PMID: 25271222. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25271222

A quick search in NCBI will unearth even more... ESADA is not insignificant... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=ESADA

MaynardClark (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

again, maynard you are being argumentative (and fiercely so), but your arguments are not based on policy. please please slow down, and calm down. this is not personal. the citing of a paper by a group, doesn't make the group itself notable in Wikipedia. in wikipedia, for notabilty (please read that) to be met, we need independent sources (please read that) talking about the database project -not about the research produced by the project. i know you just took a bunch of time to go find all those references, but they are not what you need. i am sorry you wasted your time. Do you understand what is needed? (please try to learn!) thanks Jytdog (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because.the accusation doesn't match the facts of the situation.

The article for Sahlgrenska Academy, the main contractor of the project, goes back 12 years, to 19 October 2002‎

The article for Gothenburg University, institutional setting for Sahlgrenska Academy, goes back ~13.5 years to 10 May 2001‎.

These articles' longevity in the Wikipedia project should count for something, and the Sahlgrenska Academy is merely the institutional setting where the research is being done to develop this database.

How can the deletionist contend that the article is a veiled advertisement for an organization that is not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject? I'm not personally invested in this, but I chanced upon the article because of other work I was doing in the project. That's my $00.02. --MaynardClark (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The stub has so little information and zero sources. Is the database online or just maintained in a computer?--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is not about Sahlgrenska Academy nor is it about Gothenburg University. It is about the ESAD. There are zero sources to show it is notable. Hence, speedy deletion. This is not how WP articles are written. If you check out the creator of the article you will see that he created a bunch of bad articles and uploaded a bunch of copyvio images. Jytdog (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But the BASIS of CSD is stated to be the following: "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article about a club, society or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. See CSD A7." I do agree that we ought to be able to (a) FIND the database AND (b) find credible 3rd party publication(s) about that database. MaynardClark (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

i suggest you stop arguing and start asking questions. you barely know what you are doing. about your (a): WP does not exist to help people find anything. This is wrong and not what you should be trying to do. about your (b) - yes, that is what is needed. you have not introduced any independent sources yet to show this database is notable. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog. The reason I asked the question about where the database is located is because if the content is not on the web, the database would not be subject to A7. There is no provision in A7 to delete an article about an offline database. Now that the article has been taken to AfD, the point is moot, but I thought I'd explain myself anyway for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

sources

BMH3134 added an old, WP:PRIMARY source to try to add bolster this article. 1) the source is not independent of the subject of the article; 2) it is older than the source already there and so provides no basis for additional content (the existing source is an "update" from them from 2014; the added source is a poster abstract from a meeting providing an update from early 2010 ). What is the point of the source, except to pad the article and make the group seem more notable? What we need are independent sources - people not part of that group discussing the group. Right now we have zero. If there are none, there are none. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Official website

There should be an External links section with a link to their Official website.

What is the link to their official website?

— Cirt (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

that would be reference #1 Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd. That says www.elicit.se, some company website apparently. I was expecting a website of the organization itself, something like www.esada.se or www.esada.com or something like that, no? — Cirt (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be hosted by some IT website company or something. Why don't they have their own separate website and domain name? Confusing, but perhaps could find out with more research. — Cirt (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

yep. you are going down the same road i went down. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, okay okay, perhaps. I'll try to find some time to do more research and perhaps write up a draft version offline or something, but don't have lots of time these days. And sometimes my article writing and research process takes weeks or months. :P We'll see. — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Made a link. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 02:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources under alternate spelling European Sleep Apnoea Database

Additional sources under alternate spelling European Sleep Apnoea Database. — Cirt (talk) 13:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible more sources

• European Sleep Apnea Database — Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• European Sleep Apnoea Database — Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss removal of sources on talk page

Can we please discuss these removal of sources DIFF here on the talk page?

The admin that closed the AFD as no consensus defaulting to Keep said: "I do wish to caution those who may wish to remove certain citations, that under WP:SELFSOURCE, non-contentious information that is not unduly self-serving MAY be supplied by the organization itself. Thanks to the attention of many, this article is supported by numerous WP:RS/MC, the organization is widely accepted through academic consensus and wide use by others."

I'd very much like for the article to keep the sources.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 20:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

health claims and the rest

this article is full of health claims that are not supported by secondary sources per WP:MEDRS and the rest is basically trvia. The former is 'irresponsible and flies in the face of what Project Medicine tries to do. As for the latter, I don't care if we have a puff piece on a collaborative research project and am willing to let that stand. But the health claims need to go. I am not going to fight with an administrator over this. But the health claims - this is the kind of thing we see from altmed POV-pushers. blech. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What health claims? Which sources? All the sources about health claims are to peer-reviewed medical journals or other sources that themselves cite those peer reviewed medical journals. — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

the ones i deleted and you reverted - i was only deleting health claims. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, the health claims are cited to European Respiratory Journal and American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

you do not understand MEDRS. please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. really, i am done. i am not discussing things with an administrator who doesn't understand our guidelines and makes adamant claims that are dead wrong. it is not worth it. outta here. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC) (not outta here. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC))

LOL, you've said you're "done" so many times only to not be "done", it's almost not even funny anymore. Anyways, The admin that closed the AFD as no consensus defaulting to Keep said: "I do wish to caution those who may wish to remove certain citations, that under WP:SELFSOURCE, non-contentious information that is not unduly self-serving MAY be supplied by the organization itself. Thanks to the attention of many, this article is supported by numerous WP:RS/MC, the organization is widely accepted through academic consensus and wide use by others." — Cirt (talk) 20:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Jytdog: Your WP:ADHOM aside, if properly cited, they remain... WP:DONTLIKEIT notwithstanding. Simple. Edit warring is not worth the block... is it? And Cirt, no need to poke the bear. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Understood, was not my intent, my apologies. — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 20:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

3 comments to MichaelQSchmidt.

1) I am not edit warring and made no move to. As soon as I saw i was reverted I came here and opened a discussion per WP:BRD.

2) Every Wikipedia policy and guideline urge us to use secondary sources. WP:MEDRS makes that even more clear and strong for health-related claims. None of the health content in this article is supported by a secondary source (which is defined in MEDRS here). It is not IDONTLIKEIT - it is policy and guideline the basis for rational discussion here. But not when people ignore them or make adamant claims about them that are dead wrong. I deal with POV-pushers all day on health related content and it a classic and wrong claim to say that any article published in the biomedical literature is "ok" to support a health claim. This is not true. I am used to dealing with that misunderstanding from newbies but I am really surprised that someone who has been around as long as Cirt doesn't understand that. The flat "wrong" Cirt gave me above shocked me and I reacted too strongly. That was bad of me.

3) To be clear, what I just "don't like" is the trivia about the consortium database but I made no move to delete that, and in my original statement above I said I had no intention to delete it. It is the health claims that should not be in Wikipedia. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

if the article complied with MEDRS, it would look like this. (with the exception of cleaning up the sources) That would be appropriate and would comply with the AfD close. Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Might have been far better to add "" to any health claim you wish removed and then allow the citations to be added one-by-one. And please, repeated WP:BLUDing about any issue is a form of warring. Discussion here is the proper means. And while the GNG is a fine tool, it is not the only means by which notability may be measured... or are you also advocating for the blanket deletion of all the various SNGs? Guideline does not overrule the allowances and instruction of policy, and under WP:RS's WP:SELFSOURCE medical claims may be cited back to the organization... but I note that they are supported by secondary sources. This close was not easy as the AFD was becoming heated. I invite you to step back and drop the stick. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for talking. I am discussing things.. I have said nothing about deleting the article nor about GNG nor SNG, so I don't know why you are mentioning them. Why are you mentioning them? (real question) I am talking only about appropriate sourcing for statements about health, per WP:MEDRS. I proposed only to remove health related claims and you can see the resulting article in my test edit here. It is still plenty big. I am not talking about deleting that. Please do look at the test edit and you will see what I mean. thanks Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

and respectfully, per MEDRS, the health claims are not supported by secondary sources. They are supported by primary sources. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Definitions. Please. Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is a fine SNG, but it does not over-rule the logic and principle behind the allowance of certain WP:PRIMARY sources under WP:SELFSOURCE as found in the main page of WP:RS. Yes, WP:MEDRS does state " Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content", but it does not say they are absolutely and forever disallowed. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 21:33, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

After the hard AfD I can see things are dug in. I want to say that you are allowing WP to communicate badly-sourced and likely incorrect health information to the public. Project Medicine works every day to get rid of crap like this. (and it is generally alt-med POV-pushers who reach for the same line you just did to push to keep crap content in WP - it is a really lame move) But I am now indeed dropping the stick and walking away. Thanks again for talking in any case. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)