Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASTEROID trial


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ASTEROID trial

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Individual trials not notable. JFW | T@lk  22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trials can be notable, but only if there's something particularly newsworthy about them (like deaths), which is not the case here. Hairhorn (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Major trial. I see from Scopus that the article reporting it has been cited by 403 papers so far. Some may be mentions, but if we literally followed GNG presumably makes hundreds of valid secondary sources to show notability. Some idea of the importance3 can be judged by seeing some specific papers, which I consider to serve realistically as such sources:
 * "Evaluating Lipid-Lowering Trials in the Twenty-First Century" by W. C. Roberts, American Journal of Cardiology Volume 103, Issue 9, 1 May 2009, Pages 1325-1328   DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.02.008
 * "ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction).." J. Anderson et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 50 (7), pp. e1-e157 (2007)
 * "Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005" Journal of the American Medical Association 295 (19), pp. 2270-2274 (2006)

etc etc. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In general single studies are not notable, but this is a widely reported and discussed (and criticized) study.
 * Keep - Trials are notable if they're covered in third party sources. It doesn't need to be "particularly newsworthy", it needs to be covered in third party sources. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Loads and loads of Gscholar hits. Following WP:BEFORE would have been advantageous here.  Power.corrupts (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.