Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 13:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction

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

Non-notable clinical study &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 00:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 00:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Basically an external link with little other information. There's probably lots of similar studies around the world, so this one is nothing special. - Mgm|(talk) 00:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established per the usual rules. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - the article title is definitely hugely notable and worthy of research. The TIMI study that is referenced is just one particular study on this topic. The article thrombolysis is more general than the present article title. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not actually one clinical study but a programme of ongoing research. I've lost count of the number of papers produced by this effort, but it has made a major impact on the way heart attacks are treated worldwide. JFW | T@lk  06:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not use those papers as sources for the related articles then? This article lacks content. It only says "X is Y" with no other information. I don't see how this substub can be expanded without causing major overlap or turning promotional. - Mgm|(talk) 11:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should get an article if we can prove its influence from external coverage. Looking at google news, it seems that they developed the criteria used in other studies, it that right? This title is very confusing, it should be moved to TIMI study or something like that. Juzhong (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it's a series of studies, not just one, and they have received enough coverage in secondary sources (which can be found in Google News and Google Books search results) to meet the notability guidelines. — Snigbrook 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepI think it should be keep. Could use some info on what each of the TIMI's found.  There are at least 46 different studies.  Could provide some interesting history about cardiac care.--Doc James (talk) 22:18, 17 November 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.