Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CHHIP
- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- CHHIP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. B E C K Y S A Y L E S 05:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- That is correct. --Mark viking (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Delete - Unable to find any WP:INDEPENDENT coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2016 (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.