Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The QUEST 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   redirect to Dog_health. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The QUEST study

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a somewhat generically named clinical trial recently (Sep 08) published in the Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine. It is already quoted in Pimobendan and the reported results are reflected in press clippings, but that doesn't mean that the study itself is notable as being itself the subject of independent coverage and already had a lasting impact. Tikiwont (talk) 09:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To address specifically the points you raise: - The study is the largest undertaken in the history of veterinary cardiology. I respectfully suggest that in terms of impact, this study will have a profound and extremely long-lasting effect on the way heart disease is treated in dogs. - Heart disease affects 1 in 10 dogs, and with a US dog population of 68 million (USA today, Sept 6th, 2002), that means that this information is going to be relevant to a lot of people. - On the issue of notability, the topic is sufficiently noteworthy to have achieved coverage in at least one quality national paper in the UK - The Daily Telegraph.  - In regard to the comment on the naming of the study, QUEST stands for "QUality of life and Extension of Survival Time" according to the publication. Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. Let me just clarify that
 * (i) you may opr may not be right about it's possible long term impact, but it seems to be too early to be sure;
 * (ii) I sympathize with the plight of the dogs and their owners, but surely hope they get good advice elsewhere
 * (iii) clinical trials are part of the life cycle of a drug as are confirming or contradicting studies as well as meta studies, official approbations and later controversies; in fact the aptly named Telegraph article "New drug to treat dogs with heart disease" mostly demonstrates that mainstream media are beginning to take notice of the drug and it is not a question that we can have an article on the drug itslef.
 * (iv) The full title still applies somewhat generally to the scope of many medications and other studies have the same name which apart from making searching for refs more difficult, is indeed not really relevant here.
 * In short, there need to be very good reasons to have a separate article on a clinical trial, and I don't think this is the case here. But there will now be five days for other wikipedians to weigh in.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Tikiwont (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dog_health. I'd also support a new article on Cardiology (veterinary) or Cardiology (dogs).  This study is not notable enough to justify its own article.  There isn't enough information to reach even a B-class article.  It's just too small of a topic.  However, Wikipedia should certainly mention this study, in the context of a larger topic area.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. Completely lacks context; reader is much better served with a good article on MMVD and its treatments than one short article about one trial comparing some of its treatments. JFW | T@lk  20:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I have made a small edit to the Dog_health entry, which I hope is in the spirit of the feedback.Johnjamesbarrowman (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well the study can be mentioned where relevant, as usual pending editorial consent. Given that this is done by the article's creator I don't think that amounts to a merge with the need to keep the edit history, though.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2008 (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.