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. Sourcing as it currently exists renders this TooSoon. I don't see this changing in the short term so have not draftified but if SMcDonald1 needs a copy, happy to provide it for their userspace. Star Mississippi 02:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNACS Study[edit]

The SNACS Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The study fails WP:GNG. I don't see independent significant coverage of the study by multiple reliable sources. The rationale for the study appears to be largely WP:SYNTH; the cited sources do not mention the study at all and it does not appear that they would contribute towards the study's notability. Wikipedia is also not a place to publish original research, which appears to be happening here. For these reasons, the article should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Australia, and Canada. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Needs independent significant secondary sources that talk about the SNAC study specifically, rather than about the issues it is studying. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in my other reply, the study discussed within the article is ongoing, which means there are fewer independent significant secondary sources published at the moment. However, references to the details of the SNACs study are to the protocol and the Canadian Institute of Health Research database, both of which are government databases that are reviewed and approved independent of the research team for the SNACS study. I kindly suggest we keep this page, as it can be continuously updated to include further secondary sources as they become available. Thank you for your time and consideration reviewing this response. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Thank you for your comment. I kindly suggest that the Wikipedia article should not be deleted. As the study discussed within the article is ongoing it may be less apparent that WP:GNG guidelines are met. My intention was to continuously update this page throughout the upcoming years. This way when there is an increase in significant coverage of the topic as well as secondary sources that are published to support this study, I could include them within the Wikipedia article. To provide further clarity to readers regarding notability, I have revised the Wikipedia article to indicate this study is ongoing and further information will be included when available.

When discussing details of the study, I currently reference the protocol (which is verified by members of clinicaltrials.gov, a government database) to contribute to the study’s notability. Other cited sources are not meant to mention the study, but rather verify the various evidence/facts presented. I have removed reference to the study website as that is not fully independent of the subject (as required in the notability guidelines).

However, to include coverage from other reliable sources I have also included a citation to the Canadian Institute of Health Research (a reliable government source) database which reviewed and approved the material presented.

All information presented within the article was referenced in prior sources that are included in the reference list.  

In addition, thank you for your comment that the rationale of the study is WP:SYNTH. I included multiple sources for the rationale of the study as evidence from multiple sources informed the rationale. No one source, had the necessary information to provide an accurate citation. Within the rationale I stated evidence from various sources that inform the rationale (which I cited with a source to the trial registry). Therefore, I am not implying a conclusion, but rather stating various facts that inform the research study. Thank you for your time and consideration reviewing this response. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote once only. Also, I'm reminding any reviewers that SDMcDonald1 has declared a conflict of interest with this topic. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for that error. I have revised my replies to now only include one vote. I declared a conflict of interest with this topic to be transparent as per the Wikipedia guidelines. However, the article was revised to include a neutral tone. Looking forward to further discussion on this article. SDMcDonald1 (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we cannot evaluate notability based upon the mere assertion that there will be multiple independent reliable sources that address this subject in the future but do not yet exist. The fact that the trial is currently indexed by a Canadian government database and an U.S. government database does not confer notability when there is little-to-no independent information that has been written about this study—the information in that American database was provided by McMaster University (who one of the Principal Invesigators works for) while the Canadian database entry is labeled as having the information supplied by the researcher. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or possibly Draftify) with largely the same rationale as nominator. This one pretty clearly seems to fall under WP:TOOSOON. I appreciate SDMcDonald1's contributions and respect their position on this matter (their COI notwithstanding), but I agree with Mhawk10 in that there's just not enough independent coverage yet to justify this topic having its own article. Sleddog116 (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2022 (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.