Deletion of Clinical trials with surprising outcomes

Comment: If secondary sources could establish strong criteria for inclusion and article set, the utility of the list would outweigh the problem of deciding what is "surprising" vs. "merely unexpected". A resource for some good "game changing" research in medicine would be nice, but a list that would exclude Jenner's vaccination study or Pasteur's rabies series because they didn't have an acronym (weren't formal trials by modern standards) isn't. The current list suffers from |recentism, and the arbitrary character seems too great a gap to bridge
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Recentism (WP:RECENT)

Comment: very subjective criteria. Fails the policy of what wikipedia is not:  says articles are not case studies and are not indiscriminate information (read: subjective compilations
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: for the same reasons discussed in great detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important publications in mathematics and other related discussions.  In particular, accusations of "original research" regarding this page are spurious.  Editorial decisions regarding the inclusion of content are fundamental to Wikipedia.  The act of reading sources and choosing material to include in Wikipedia is not OR according to the policies here.  Just read : ''Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia'' and so on.  It seems clear that the content of this page is supported by sources.  I agree that the name of the page isn't ideal, but I don't have enough subject-specific knowledge to propose a good alternative
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)