- 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. Even the article's creator is going for "delete". Randykitty (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ASTEROID trial (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)
Other than primary sources, I can't find much. I'm not sure how one judges the notability of an individual trial/paper, this does have a fair few citations. Maybe this should be redirected somewhere else related to statin research JMWt (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I didn't notice that it had previously been to AfD - although the page doesn't seem to have been improved much since the last AfD if that makes any difference. JMWt (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is true that the paper has lots of citations but I am also unable to locate any secondary sources that discuss this trial, therefore as per WP:NOTE "General notability guideline" bullet point 4 "sources", I don't think this warrants an article despite the previous conclusion and number of citations (difference between citing something and discussing it, in any level of detail). I am open to be corrected if someone can find one. EvilxFish (talk) 08:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A trial that has nearly 3000 citations? You would have to work hard to make the case that this was not a notable study. It's all over the literature in the field, and many of those secondary studies are straight extensions and dedicated re-analyses of the outcomes by different research groups - so I'm afraid I'll have to call a certain amount of BS on the above statement that there are "no secondary sources". "Secondary source" does not mean "not an original research study", it just means "not the study that originated these data, and/or unaffiliated with the originator". This seems to be a widely discussed topic of generally acknowledged importance. Worth a stub that should be easily expandable by someone with knowledge of the area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Creator of the article. Individual clinical trials are often not encyclopedic, and it would seem that 16 years later this trial hasn't had the impact of some other studies of a more pivotal nature. JFW | T@lk 06:55, 27 December 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.