I don't believe that this work meets WS:WWI#Reference material
as it is a list of results from a PubMed search. Additionally, the quoted ISBN number doesn't exist on WorldCat, Google, or the Copyright Clearance Centre. Beeswaxcandle
) 22:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
- It is the humanized selection of the output of a pubmed search. Original output is 5200 items, selected are 965 items. This makes a human-made nephro-skewed bibliography. Its not the raw data !
- It is simultaneously upped to creataspace and it will be on amazon in 5 days.
- It will be mirrored to googlebooks soon; apperance lag is a few weeks. Worldcat depends on libraries holdings, which is zero of course. CCC - dont know, well I will have a spy on that.
- It is definitively no textbook-like content which is collected at wikibooks.
- ISBN is mine.
--Ossip Groth (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
--Ossip Groth (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Wikibooks could be a good place for it, provided there is an interpretive introduction. It is also possible to create a "List" on wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists for examples of list articles on Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- migrated to enwiki , tagged Lists of publications in science. Let it stay in ws until survival on wp.
--Ossip Groth (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
At enwiki. it caught an immediate It is proposed that this article be deleted because of the following concern:
Unencyclopedic content.If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. Although not required, you are encouraged to explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page. If this template is removed, do not replace it.The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 11:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC).
--Ossip Groth (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment it was a terrible idea to transwiki this to Wikipedia as it is not an encyclopedic article. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:11, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- As proposed by someone else whith less terrible emotions on the subject...
--Ossip Groth (talk) 16:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not being emotional, but trying to look at content rationally. Indeed, I'm not the one getting blocked from Wikipedia for personal attacks. And furthermore, I note this is currently in the AFD process in Wikipedia and surly to be deleted per w:en:WP:SNOW. Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- With no argument in mind, the universal answer is If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. I AM NOT IN SNOWBALLING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--Ossip Groth (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If it is going to survive at Wikipedia it would need to be a list, it is not an article. You have a couple of days for the AFD to run, read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and see if you can convert it to a list that meets the simpler list criteria.
- Also keep in mind that not having a home elsewhere does is not a rationale to keep on any wiki. Jeepday (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Everybody tells me to make a list of it, i did and cought a speedy immediately. The "discussion" there is inappropriate, whereas the leading discussants on wsource stay fair. Some later came over from the list's discussion to express their personal opinion here.
--Ossip Groth (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not within scope. Ossip Groth, I understand that you want to have it on a wiki, however, desire alone doesn't bring it into scope of WMF wikis. We are neither a bibliographic nor citation listing site. Good luck in your search for one. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: You could try looking into Wikiversity. It's the one wikiproject I don't actually understand personally but it does claim to include and facilitate collaborative research. I don't know if they would accept the data but it may be an option. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- In any case you will probably need to modify it meet requirements of the wiki, and expect that it will not stay the way you made it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 18:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Deleted as reference material.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)