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.
NN medical trial - it's basically the details for the trial linked in the EL, but had to have been put up by someone with access to the details, as they're not available to non-healthcare professionals at the source provided. I also cannot find a report in The Lancet (UK Oncology Journal) that appears to relate to this particular study, even with the principal researcher's name on it.
MSJapan (
talk) 00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I've added the Lancet Oncology piece to the article. So far I am seeing a number of reliable but primary papers on the topic; nothing yet
WP:MEDRS-worthy. --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Undecided -
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] indicate to me that the topic meets
WP:GNG. I'm gathering that a different notability criteria is applied for medical topics. Someone please teach me about this. ~
Kvng (
talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For notability purposes, I don't think there are different criteria for the med folk. We need independent RS. I think the sources you link to are likely reliable peer-reviewed publications, but not independent of those conducting the trial. I guess I was using "primary" to mean "not independent", which isn't quite right. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, we need RS from other than the group conducting the trial. --
Mark viking (
talk) 00:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
OK, so you're saying that although the sources currently cited may be published by a
reliable source, they are not
independent and so the
golden rule is not satisfied here. ~
Kvng (
talk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
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.
NN medical trial - it's basically the details for the trial linked in the EL, but had to have been put up by someone with access to the details, as they're not available to non-healthcare professionals at the source provided. I also cannot find a report in The Lancet (UK Oncology Journal) that appears to relate to this particular study, even with the principal researcher's name on it.
MSJapan (
talk) 00:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I've added the Lancet Oncology piece to the article. So far I am seeing a number of reliable but primary papers on the topic; nothing yet
WP:MEDRS-worthy. --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Undecided -
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4] indicate to me that the topic meets
WP:GNG. I'm gathering that a different notability criteria is applied for medical topics. Someone please teach me about this. ~
Kvng (
talk) 21:31, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
For notability purposes, I don't think there are different criteria for the med folk. We need independent RS. I think the sources you link to are likely reliable peer-reviewed publications, but not independent of those conducting the trial. I guess I was using "primary" to mean "not independent", which isn't quite right. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, we need RS from other than the group conducting the trial. --
Mark viking (
talk) 00:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
OK, so you're saying that although the sources currently cited may be published by a
reliable source, they are not
independent and so the
golden rule is not satisfied here. ~
Kvng (
talk) 16:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
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.