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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JUPITER trial[edit]

JUPITER trial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Articles on individual trials are usually unnecessary, unless individual trials have secondary sources that support their absolutely earth-shattering relevance. While the JUPITER trial is interesting, its findings have not even been included in clinical guidelines. JFW | T@lk 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (article creator) I'd argue that large-scale clinical trials such as this one are actually a great type of article for Wikipedia. There are a number of trials in Category:Clinical trials that explain the research protocol, clinical relevance, and media attention--I'd argue that good-quality lay explanation of relevant studies is directly in-line with Wikipedia's goals. (incidentally, JFW authored these two clinical trial articles) :) This article is highly sourced and the subject was featured in multiple major news outlets, currently with citations from the medical literature, the Los Angeles Times & Reuters. I'd argue that the results are still being analyzed and discussed in the relevant literature: PMID 19329822 is a new analysis of JUPITER (published 30 April 2009) that shows a reduction in venous thromboembolism, a potentially novel effect of statins (PMID 19505206). These are new sources I'd consider adding[1][2][3][4]. Finally, there is some precedent for keeping a similar article with substantially less content, too. — Scientizzle 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As said by the nominator, it is an interesting topic. More importantly, it appears to be well cited in other papers, and it has good references in clinical journals (Endrocrinolgy Today), national newspapers (LA Times) and even financial news (Reuters). Seems to be a solid article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't understand something: JFW, why did you create the tiny ASTEROID trial article about a clinical study of the same drug, and yet you find the larger, more solidly referenced JUPITER trial to be less noteworthy of an encyclopedia article? Can you clarify this? — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I've changed my mind, and now think that these trials are not encyclopedic. I'll happily send the ASTEROID article to AFD as well if that is needed to lend weight to my opinion. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather see ASTEROID trial expanded, personally. — Scientizzle 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, JFW, thanks for your explanation. I see no reason to delete that study -- there appears to be plenty of sources to allow expansion. I'm uncertain about Verbal's suggestion of merging the trials -- but I do think we should have better links or referrals to these pages in the Rosuvastatin and Statins articles, so that readers can find this information. These articles can only provide a more complete picture of the topic. — CactusWriter | ^needles 05:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nom, creator, and other !vote(s). Perhaps JUPITER and ASTEROID should be merged and redirected to "Statin clinical trials" or "Clinical trials of statins"? Verbal chat 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some single studies are notable - this one was widely reported and discussed. Merge w/ ASTEROID may be OK —G716 <^T·_C> 05:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good article about noteable study. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2009 (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.