Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ONE Study


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 12:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The ONE Study

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This strikes me as an unencyclopedic description of a medical research project that does not appear to have attracted notice from reliable secondary sources and thus unfortunately falls short of the WP:GNG requirements. The cited sources are research linked to organ transplants, not independent coverage of the study that forms the topic of the article. Batard0 (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable clinical study. I could not find any coverage about it at Google Scholar or Google News Archive. In addition, the article is hopelessly unencyclopedic, written like a journal article abstract. (I was suspicious that it might have been cut-and-pasted from somewhere, but that doesn't appear to be the case.) This article lacks a summary lead, and despite ten minutes of research and some medical knowledge on my part, I was unable to write one - because I couldn't clearly understand what the study is about, or even why it is called "the ONE study". --MelanieN (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a research project funded with public money by the European Commission thus it should be very interesting for the not-scientific community to know how European Commission invests the money from the taxes. For this reason we think that the page on Wikipedia should be of general interest. The reason why there is not coverage at Google Scholar or Google News Archive is: The ONE Study is an original project that will last for 60 months. The ONE Study is at the end of its second year, thus the publications are being produced. The available references are already listed on the Wikipedia page. The project is also cited on Science (SCIENCE VOL 332 27 MAY 2011 page 1021). Please check the project website, where the links to the publications related to the project are available. The name “ONE Study” is explained clearly in the section on Novelty. On the link below there is the official list of the EC funded project in the same area “New Therapies and Immunization Strategies” of The One Study. http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/biotechnology/new-therapies/projects-fp7_en.html The name of the project has been chosen by the consortium participants as it is the first study in this field. Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC) — Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Just as for any research proposal, not yet notable. Actually, the article is so intensely and entirely promotional in talking about the hoped for importance of the work that is intended to be done, that I'd consider it a G11. And the author admits the promotional purpose. I suspect even when results appear, the individual discoveries may be notable, any therapeutic drugs of value produced will be notable, but the overall funding umbrella will still not be: this is essentially a way of making a large grant request, and nothing further.  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The page is meant to provide information on The ONE Study, which is already funded by the European Union Commission; this is not a research proposal or promotion, but a description of a novel ongoing funded EU project. Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2012 (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.