Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landmark Clinical Trials


 * 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. Tone 23:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Landmark Clinical Trials

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Unmaintainable, unreferened list based on original research. Who decides what is considered "landmark"? RadioFan (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as OR. andy (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Complete violations of WP:OR-- SKATER  Speak. 22:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – totally original research. As RadioFan said, what is considered "landmark"? It's pretty much just opinion. Airplaneman  talk 22:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are very reliable metrics for what constitutes a landmark trial - for example, the number of citations a paper receives, as well as the opinion of experts in the field. For example: http://www.medscape.com/resource/statins/rc-statins4.  It was my intention to flesh out this article with citations, but it'll require a lot of work, so I posted it so I could get some help with it from other wikipedians. Also, I just want to add that I'm a doctor myself, and a repository of important clinical trials would be very useful for students of medicine.  I think many wikipedians will find this article quite helpful, which should be the ultimate determinate of whether or not an article should be deleted.  Adammarklenny (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment-You could simply create it in Userspace and move it too Mainspace when it's complete. I'd be happy to help :).-- SKATER  Speak. 23:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. While there are metrics for what constitutes a landmark trial, the article as it exists is entirely original research.  Not for here. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. List with potentially endless inclusions. Not encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk  22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I certainly do not agree that an article like this would be inherently unmaintainable or "original research" (compare List of landmark court decisions in the United States which is rated "high importance"), but the article does not seem to me to be viable in the shorter term. I think the advice above to create a draft in userspace is very wise if anyone has the drive and energy do do this and then to brave future criticism. References to the individual trials and, probably, references to their being important would be required.Thincat (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikiversity, since this might be useful for teaching. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic WP:NOR violating junk. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, per above. No way of defining landmark for the purpose of the article, hence WP:OR. prashanthns (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Why not try a Google search and all sorts of reliable sources can be found, for example Landmark Clinical Trials by Goodman and Marks. John Wiley & Sons, 2008. Those believing such a article must be inherently "original research" are probably unfamiliar with the term "landmark clinical trial". Thincat (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (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.