Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Cardiology 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

List of Cardiology Trials

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not well-defined scope (who says what is "important", or why "cardiology trials" is a unified encyclopediac topic). No evidence that these trials are actually high quality (many refs look like primary research, not WP:MEDRS). Inbound links make it look like a dumping ground for refs from other articles and/or implication that the number of refs itself on some topic might be significant (but again the list is cherry-picked with no defined inclusion criteria or scope). Tagged for these concerns for 9 months, nobody seems to care except to remove the tags and to pile in more refs. DMacks (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a clinical trials registry, and this sort of cherry-picked selection of random trials is an undue weight nightmare without any real justification as to its notability. The net result is confusing and misleading at best, and subtle advertising at worst. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a notable topic and this article ought to exist but this content needs a lot of work to meet Wikipedia standards. I want more clinical trial articles on Wikipedia and I think that they should look like this - PARAMOUNT trial. There is precedent in other articles that in some potentially very long lists like this one, the lists are cut back to items which meet Wikipedia notability criteria. If someone made individual articles for individual clinical trials then put them all in a list like this with a link to the Wikipedia article for each one, then definitely I would support this existing. Right now the information in this article is not useful by Wikipedia standards.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   11:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I would fully support a "List of clinical trials in cardiology" as an annotated list of other wikipedia articles about notable trials (and I also support having articles about those). Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists is the guideline. DMacks (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2013 (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.