Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predimed

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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. While a fair amount of discourse has occurred here, only three users have actually provided opinions. Furthermore, after two relistings, no consensus for a particular outcome has arisen. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Predimed (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)

This is a promotional book report about a primary source, with some SYN filler and a "newsy" hook about retraction and republication. There are wacky promotional claims like "there is no other dietary pattern with such a strong evidence of cardiovascular benefit". About the retraction/republication -- there will be plenty of news-cycle driven refs in the popular media about the retraction/republication which are a) not WP:MEDRS and b) not independent of that event. It will take time for reviews to come out that deal with the revised paper and we do not know yet what "accepted knowledge" is with regard to this paper in light of the revision so this is WP:TOOSOON with regard to that. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions Isn't PREDIMED the subject of these two New York Times articles dated 2013 and 2018? If yes, how can it not pass WP:GNG and be WP:TOOSOON? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/health/mediterranean-diet-can-cut-heart-disease-study-finds.html
  2. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/13/health/mediterranean-diet-heart-disease.html

See WP:MEDREV - we don't use popular media that way for content about health. Which is exactly what I said in the nomination. Jytdog (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough... What do you make of the results in Google scholar or HighBeam then? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar does not give you MEDRS results. You need to search pubmed and look for reviews, or look for clinical guidelines and the like. Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No judgement either way about keeping or deleting (yet), but I note that the deletion nomination conflates the PREDIMED trial – the nominal subject of the article, involving a fairly large, randomized prospective trial of various dietary interventions – with a recently-retracted-and-republished NEJM paper based on the PREDIMED data set.
  A cursory PubMed search finds more than 130 publications that mention "PREDIMED" in their titles. A lot of those appear to be analyses based on the PREDIMED data and trial population, along with some commentary on the trial.
  In other words, while the NEJM paper attracted a lot of media attention (both when it was initially published in 2013, and after its recent retraction and republication) it was definitely not the only output of the PREDIMED trial. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point well taken (although the primary source references are not useful to us). The nomination is basically TNT. This page is not a WP article but a book report and a promotional one at that. On top of that, given the uncertainty now about the what the results of this trial mean, we should trash this and repost when that is more clear. It might take a year for things to shake out. This is yet another reason why building a page around primary sources is a bad idea. Even if we were to try to rewrite this now using secondary sources, what would we say, at this time? Jytdog (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally, I'm not really sure what you mean when you keep repeating "book report". Perhaps you could stick to a less figurative description?)

Right now, I'm inclined towards WhatamIdoing's perspective at WT:MED about how we should address clinical trials on Wikipedia. I'm just going to quote his comment here:

Articles about clinical trials should usually be treated more like historical events than like scientific research. The question for the article to answer is "Who did what, when, and where?" rather than "Did the result get statistically significant results while following accepted scientific standards?" In some cases, the fact of a paper being retracted is what makes the event notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the question we should be asking about this trial (or any other) is whether or not it was sufficiently notable for coverage, not necessarily whether its results and interpretation have been fully settled. Now that's its own can of worms—how should we evaluate 'notability' for clinical trials? Size of population, duration of trial and followup, importance of the clinical question(s), involvement of reputable organizations, and existence of independent coverage might all be factors to consider; I'm sure there are others, as well. While a trial's result (if known) is certainly a factor, it should not be the exclusive criterion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See book report. It is something grade school students do in the US. It isn't colorful it is what this page was, when I nominated it.

If we are going to treat it like some past event, then we should find references about the trial and summarize them. The question becomes, are their sufficient independent sources with significant discussion of the topic? Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be a pain in the ass, but I know what a book report is—I'm just trying to figure out exactly how it applies here, and how it's a negative description in this context. (I presume you're intending it to be a pejorative description.) A well-written "book report" is probably how we should aim to cover most topics: a factual summary of major 'characters' and events, followed by a discussion of important 'related works' and relevant context to establish notability and impact. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep very blatant WP:GNG pass. In addition to the very detailed two New York Times articles already mentioned above, in addition to the hundreds (thousands) of results in Google Scholar, to the 130 results in PubMed, I would just like to share a couple of articles I found in El Mundo, the Spanish newspaper: 2006 2013 2014 and in El Pais, the Spanish newspaper: 2004 2013 2018. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:46, 5 July 2018 (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.