Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Corposcindosis

Corposcindosis
Delete as original research (admitted as such by the alleged author here). Also according to the same diff the author believes if his book isn't deleted he's going to be killed by someone. Now while that isn't part of the WB policy reasons to delete, it seems churlish to ignore it. Finally it may be a copyright violation and is certainly more trouble than it is worth to save it IMO. QU TalkQu 22:50, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral- This user is nothing more than a troll. His requests, long conspiracy texts and disruption is just wasting our time.  And now this vote is doing the same thing.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean you aren't enjoying the fun? ;-) QU TalkQu 23:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete OR as admitted by the author. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If I had any sort of sense of humour about this sort of trolling, I'd suggest a transwiki to WV. But I'm tired today. Chazz (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Xania, this RfD is a waste of time, it is super-seeded by the copyvio discussion, there is no point to this... If at all this discussion should be initiated if the book survived the copyvio. Since the inconsistencies of the behavior of the presumable author, I have read part of it. Even if I agree with the POV expressed in the book, it may be violating the NPOV (since all content is negative toward a type o surgery), akin to writing a book against doing lobotomies and failing to mention why people thought it was a good idea and why even today it is used. I found no major issues about OR if all the source attributions are correct.
 * I do not see any great value in the book, but also do not find a reason for deletion, but I'm forced to opt for a keep to protect the status quo, doing anything else would put the work under a very skewed procedure, since the book is already under copyvio and the person involved in the procedure has been erratic. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * What a silly and false assertion: "violating the NPOV (since all content is negative toward a type o surgery), akin to writing a book against doing lobotomies and failing to mention why people thought it was a good idea and why even today it is used." The book is "The Effects of Thoracic Sympathectomy", not "the Reasons for sympathectomy". Even so, there is an exhaustive list of the complaints for which sympathectomy is or was indicated. You cannot cite even a single sentence from the entire book that violates NPOV. Having said that, you're right, it's POV, delete it. Ace Baker (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's original research. Ignore all the citations to mainstream medical literature. It's original research, plus it's my copyright. I made it all up. There is no such thing as thoracic sympathectomy. Delete as OR, delete as copyvio, delete to save my life. Whatever. Just delete. Ace Baker (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Yes, it's original research. Ignore all the citations to mainstream medical literature.". The definition of original research is not that it is uncited, or just "made up". Rather it is that the subject itself is not one that is recognised. This doesn't mean it isn't true or accurate, simply that you created the field of study yourself and wrote about it. Until such time as "corposcindosis" becomes a recognised concept and field of study by reliable sources independent of you, then it is original research QU TalkQu 10:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right. The fact that this book is about "The Effects of Sympathectomy" and that there are literally thousands of journal articles about "The Effects of Sympathectomy" dating from the 1940's to the present indicates that I "created the field of study myself". DeleteAce Baker (discuss • contribs) 11:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete What is the delay?Ace Baker (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)