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. If significantly reliable sources back the claim to notability of this "study" in the future, I'm open to be argued against this decision to delete. Lourdes 03:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Early Check research study[edit]

Early Check research study (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 local pilot project of newborn screening (one of many ongoing in the world at any given time). Sourcing is primarily to project announcements which were run in local media. I believe such pilot studies hardly ever cross WP:N. Here, I propose to merge and redirect to newborn screening. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:58, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this was created in good faith through AfC and really should not have been passed. Refs are mainly directories, press releases, and the like; this is essentially an advertisement for the trial. We do have articles on clinical trials, but only after they are done and they have some clear enduring importance as shown in reliable sources -- for example STAR*D or Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial. We can't know if this trial will be important until after it is done. We should not merge it anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This one likely won't be important, at least in its part related to spinal muscular atrophy, as last July the disorder was added to the federal Recommended Uniform Screening Panel[1]. Over the next months, newborn screening towards SMA is expected to be incorporated into screening panels of each individual state, including N Carolina, so this study will have to be terminated (unless N Carolina decides otherwise). — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• keep My intention in posting the article was to clarify how this study differs from regular newborn screening, as families may turn to Wikipedia for the facts when deciding whether to enroll in the study. It only launched recently, so most of the references thus far are to news articles and the press release, but I also referenced the NIH project information which speaks to the notability of the study (see “public health relevance statement”)^[1]. I also referenced a scientific journal article written by the investigators that substantiates the need for a second tier of newborn screening to develop an evidence base for conditions nominated for the Recommended Uniform Screening Panels (RUSP)^[2]. Although a research study, Early Check is the first example of such a system implemented in the United States. Even though SMA has been added to the RUSP, it’s still up to individual states to undertake the process of adopting SMA to their panel, funding the start-up costs, and implementing the testing^[3]. This means that the actual implementation of SMA could be years from full implementation. Hopefully the study will provide further justification for SMA, as well as “establish an infrastructure for testing other candidate conditions,”[2] including fragile X, which has not yet been added to the RUSP. Is Wikipedia the right resource for individuals seeking clarity about current state or national research studies? I think it has the potential to be so long as the study information is available publicly. —

-- Amj16 (talk) 20:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Amj16, Per WP:MEDRS, a study considered for inclusion in an encyclopaedia would have to be referenced in multiple reliable sources independent from the study; a few press releases and an entry on the NIH website are not sufficient in the light of the Wikipedia notability criteria.

Also, I am not sure this will be the best place to educate people how a clinical trial varies from regular medical intervention; we have a dedicated article Clinical trial for this.

In my view, Wikipedia is not there to inform about each and every clinical trial – the trial's website and/or Clinicaltrials.gov are the right venues for that, per WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Actually, it will even be in the potential participants' best interest to be referred first to the trial website when searching the internet for a given study – especially that at this stage, any Wikipedia article on Early Check can only summarise the information from its website, possibly introducing errors. Hence my nom. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, person who moved this out of AfC has been blocked as one of many, many socks of sockmaster per SPI. Jytdog (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing to have the necessary sources to pass WP:GNG. The sources are simply reposting what was fed to them as per this quote from ncmedsoc "We will share more updates with you as we receive them from RTI." a couple are almost identical word for word. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:08, 23 November 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.