Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquaretics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Tyrenius (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aquaretics

Aquaretics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I've tagged this article for deletion for a number of reasons:

  • Most importantly, aquaretic is almost never used as a noun. It's usage is much more similiar to that of natriuretic (an adjective) than diuretic. As a result I believe it merits a wiktionary definition, but not a wikipedia article.
  • As the folks on this articles talk page have already pointed out, the current article content is both unverified and apparently inaccurate. I don't claim to be an expert, but the increased renal perfusion -> increased GFR -> increased H2O loss argument seems very unlikely without some kind of interference with ADH or some additional diuretic effect in the distal tubule/collecting duct.
  • With the greatest respect to its original author, I do not believe there is any content currently in the article worth preserving. If you disagree, however, perhaps it would be better merged into the diuresis article? Or used in the creation of a new aquaresis article?

Thebagman (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple other factual inaccurancies I noticed
  • The statement 'Since these preparations do not increase elimination of electrolytes, they cannot be correctly labelled as diuretics' is false - diuretics are any substance which increase urine volume.
  • Aquaretics would not help treat hyperuricemia as, if they increase water excretion, no excess uric acid would be lost. If anything they would worsen hyperuricemia by depleting fluid volume!

Thebagman (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and redevelop. ShivaeVolved 00:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Remember that we have no reason to trust anything that a pseudonymous editor calling xyrself "Thebagman" says. We have no way of knowing who you are, and no reason to care. You are a pseudonym. The rest of the world doesn't trust you, and doesn't believe "It's wrong because I say so." arguments coming from you. Sources are what we trust here at Wikipedia. So stop making bald assertions of falsehood and start citing sources. And then start using them to write articles. Sources! Sources! Sources!

    Once you've done that, please go and read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what problems do not require an administrator to press a delete button and that ordinary editors like you can fix with the tools that you have available. Deletion is not the only tool in the toolbox. Uncle G (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your feedback guys - I'm new here and am not familiar with wikipedia etiquette, sorry. I did read the deletion guide before I slapped a tag on this article - I'm not here to vandalise other people's work. However, I did get caught up in the factual inaccuracies of this article, so allow me to reiterate my argument: aquaretic is used as an adjective, not a noun. Therefore I believe this word deserves a wikitionary definition but not a wikipedia article - as described in the what wikipedia is not article.

    Note that natriuretic, an equilivent term, exists only as a disambiguation page, and then only because the word occurs in several hormones.

    Uncle G, I notice you've created a stub of an aquaresis article (good idea by the way - I'm sorry, it simply did not occur to me to do so. I'm happy to help out with expanding this). As this is the concept aquaretic describes I believe this is correct entry to cover this topic, perhaps with aquaretic redirecting to it. However, I disagree with your statement 'aquaretic is class of drugs.' If so, it is not mentioned in either my pharmacology textbook or medical dictionary - you could certainly argue such a class of drugs exists, but would that be original research?

    My sources, for the record, are Medical Physiology: Boron & Boulpaep, and Pharmocology: Rang et al. I'm sorry I can't offer you links.

    Thebagman (talk) 01:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

    • comments Baggie is right in that a diuretic is defined as anything that increases wee volume [ttp://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7103]. However the amount of urea in the body isn't necessarily worsened by water being wee-d out, as hopefully unless the kidney filtration function is poor, some urea will come out with it. Aquaretics do seem to be a real product though [1] .Merkinsmum 01:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
      • There's not much doubt about it. I've found three books on herbal medicine talking about them already. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I can. They are ISBN 0721632564 and ISBN 0443072027, respectively. My source is the one cited in the article, which says that there is a new class of drugs called aquaretics, in pretty much those very words, on the page given. It would be original research if I were advancing that as a novel idea of my own, but I'm not. It's not my idea.

      If you want to learn more, go and read page 189 of ISBN 0781795958.

      This is why we cite sources. You don't need to take my word for things. You can go and check for yourself, in the sources cited. And there are plenty more where those came from, it appears. Uncle G (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am now suitably chastised and much more familiar with Wikipedia policy for citing textbooks as sources. I don't have my BNF with me and so can't check in there, however, I'm not sure a single reference to a book on palliative care and supportive oncology is sufficient evidence for a class of drugs called aquaretics.

In any case, I still have reservations about the notability of this article - I feel 'plenty', especially, might be pushing it. A search on PubMed (www.pubmed.com) shows 23 published articles containing the word 'aquaretics' i.e. which use it as a noun. 23 may sound impressive, but not compared with 68,313 results for 'diuretics', the term you are arguing aquaretics is equivilent to.

Anyway, I believe I have made my case as strongly as I can. I'll be interested to see what decision ends up being taken. Thebagman (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs rewriting. Conivaptan and tolvaptan, amongst others, are V2 antagonists in development as aquaretics. They are very different from natriuretics as they increase free water clearance by inhibiting AVP. Last month an entire supplement of Am J Med (21 pages) was devoted to the indications for their use. JFW | T@lk 22:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't believe that objects need to adhere to the same guidelines as people; classes of drugs do not need to win awards or be repeatedly cited by mainstream periodicals. In the WP:Note summary "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the only word here that can really be debated is "significant". I think that Oxford University Press is significant and reliable, and the others aren't easily dismissed. Tanthalas39 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2007 (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.