Deletion of AIM-HIGH

Comment: Fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: If this study is notable (and you may actually conclude it is when you see what I found), it is mainly notable as a flop - a study that did not prove what it set out to prove. It produced quite a few papers,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=AIM-HIGH although only one is cited in the article. The citation rate of the papers about this study is not high.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=AIM-HIGH&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= There was actually quite a bit of general news coverage, possibly enough to meet .http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=AIM-HIGH+study&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#q=AIM-HIGH+niacin+study&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=ar:1&sa=X&ei=wvX8T7-NB4z22AX_saDrDA&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQpwUoBQ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=b4f2ee024a9f4052&biw=1029&bih=568  The main thing reported is that the clinical trial was halted prematurely due to "lack of efficacy."http://www.healio.com/cardiology/chd-prevention/news/online/%7B6910CFEE-A775-408A-A9C3-4C3D3C4E9CF6%7D/AIM-HIGH-study-halted-prematurely-by-NIH (You sure wouldn't know that from the article, would you?) If the consensus here is that the article should be kept, I will undertake a rewrite to make it accurate and sourced. But I personally favor delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)