Deletion of PMID 8474513

Comment: per nom. No  asserted. What makes ''this particular study and paper'' (NB: not the broader scientific topic(s) in general) important beyond being a footnote or sentence in articles on the topic
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: I do not see a problem with an article that reports one study. In fact, WikiPedia has many such examples. Look at Framingham Heart Study, Tuskegee study, Nurses' Health Study, British Doctors Study, National Comorbidity Study, Middletown studies, Whitehall Study, Heart Protection Study, Stanford prison experiment, Milgram experiment, Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study, The Gothenburg Study of Children with DAMP, 1964 Chesapeake Bay crossing study. Admittedly some of these are noted for historical reasons, but many are not. Some suffer from not having their numeric results summarized in a standard way that may influence the decision making of doctors and patients. Because the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (that we are discussing), and many other studies report their benefit in relative terms only, they can be misleading (see research on reporting problems: {{PMID|8474513}}, {{PMID|14687273}}, {{PMID|10612327}}, etc). I am  hoping that PMID 8474513 leads to a template on scientific reporting. A decision to delete here for  seems an arbitrary value judgment. So WikiPedia can have subtle Star Trek and Andy Griffith trivia, but cannot have a report of an article that affected people's health? WK has templates for baseball scores, but not for scientific reporting? If you delete this for lack of notability, you start a slippery slope - where do you draw the line? Does everyone have the same values on  as you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY||WP:NOTABILITY)