Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigator's brochure


 * 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   keep. there is sufficient evidence that the term is used the same way in different countries, and is a real subject. I urge some drastic cuts, and perhaps Melanie, who suggested such cuts, will carry them out  DGG ( talk ) 00:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Investigator's brochure

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not sure if notable. Sources don't really use the term, and the article is a huge rambling, tl;dr blob of coatrackery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but trim by about 95%. The term is commonly used in the clinical research community. But this bloated how-to article is way, way Too Much Information. Wikipedia is not for WP:HOWTO. It is so extremely detailed I actually suspected it was copied from someplace, but I could not find anything online to confirm my suspicion (just Wikipedia mirrors). --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Without a clear explanation of what the topic is, we have no way to judge whether it's notable or whether the references (which do look good) are actually relevant. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Keep - Per reliable sources that verify notability of the topic and . Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 01:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems to be a term which is used; however there is no evidence that the term means the same thing when used by different entities. Born to be a coatrack of disparate meanings. I note that the apparent four sources given by MelanieN and Northamerica1000 are actually two, used by both; I could get only one to load and it gave no indication the term was anything but an in-house term there. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 14:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Both load for me, as do the sources referenced in the article. They are from a variety of institutions, including the FDA (US), the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (UK), and the European Medicines Agency (EU); all appear to deal with the same topic as the article under discussion and give a non-trivial treatment. --Lambiam 01:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But does the phrase mean the exact same thing at all those agencies? No. Hence, delete as coatrack by design. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the exact same thing". Do all reliable sources discussing (say) "incest" or "Greek cuisine" mean "the exact same thing"? Surely not, but that does not mean our articles on Incest and Greek cuisine are coatracks, by design or otherwise. All sources here use the term "Investigator's brochure" to mean a document, to be provided for the investigator in a clinical trial, that gives the data (clinical and nonclinical) on the investigated product that are relevant to the trial. It is your turn to provide some evidence that the term is also used in reliable sources with a substantially different meaning, and that the meaning given here is not primary. Even then, in view of the fact that the subject treated here appears to be notable, this would only mean that the article should be deleted, but only that the title needs to be disambiguated to something like "Investigator's brochure (clinical trial)", not that the article should be deleted. --Lambiam 07:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, incest always means the same thing. Greek cuisine is a broad category of foods. Your analogies are somewhat faulty. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that incest always means the exact same thing to all people in all cultures, then please read the first paragraph of our Incest article. It is clearly not even true that all authors require the act to be illegal, as included in our definition, to be considered incest. I did not offer these examples as analogies (which, like all analogies, are not the exact same thing as that to which they are analogous, so that you can always argue they are "somewhat faulty"), but as counterexamples to the idea that an article necessarily becomes a coatrack if not all sources mean "the exact same thing" with the term used to name the subject. These were just two random examples; actually there are many thousands (Agents of Roman Congregations, Executive summary, Fricative consonant, Government, Interval (mathematics), Melolonthinae, Well-founded relation, to name just a random few). Put more simply, in my opinion "I see no evidence that the term means the exact same thing when used by different entities" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Lambiam 21:19, 18 September 2011 (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.