Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paramax

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. Nice work by Davidruben and others to source and expand this article to establish notability. The fact that delete votes all came prior to the revamping is obviously significant.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paramax

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

Delete not every drug or combination of drugs is notable - this unsourced two-sentence article is about such a nn drug combo Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources. Renee (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Additional sources and references make it a keeper, see more after re-listing. Renee (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. No reason I can see not to have articles on combination products. The lack of references is easily fixed -- a Google search reveals many online references, and there will be many thousands of print ones. The WP Pharmacology style sheet suggests using the generic names with a slash, ie renaming to paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I only created the article so other people would be able to find it as it wouldn't be appropriate to redirect to either drug as it isn't mentioned on any page. If you guys were so concerned about references why don't you go find some, want me to reference the sky being blue? Paramax IS paracetamol and metoclopramide, that's pretty much a fact. Either way, I just wanted to make it easier to find drugs on wiki. Hex ten (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete with all due speed. No sentences, only two sentence fragments! No sources. No real content (see WP:1S, which deals with longer "articles" that actually have one sentence). B.Wind (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• WP:1S is a personal essay by B.Wind which does not accord with policies, and is in no way a guideline. The article is a perfectly valid, if unreferenced, stub, which it would be trivial to expand and reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• And had you read all of the essay, you would have noticed that it discusses the lack of content and context, the lack of the former can be covered in WP:CSD, a policy, and the lack of the latter is grounds for deletion under a Wikipedia guideline. Of course, the previous post also poisons the well by ignoring the fact that by the time it was posted, the article in question had changed from the "Combination drug; paracetamol and metoclopramide. Use indicated in migrane for analgesia" (that was the entire text - no sentences!) that I saw prior to posting my !vote. I will revisit the current version below. Let's invoke another Wikipedia guideline here: WP:AGF and acknowledge that in an AfD, the article in question often changes while under discussion. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

*Delete per other Deletes. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I have changed my mind after the revamping. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 17:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I have expanded the article and added a reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: I have relisted this despite there being a consensus to delete at the request of Espresso Addict so that the updates can be considered by AFD participants. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable intersection of drugs. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Julesn84 (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any relevant content into Paracetamol and delete. This doesn't need to be a separate article. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep as being a notable product here in UK at least. There are only 3 combination analgesic/antiemetics products available in the UK, this Paramax (paracetamol/metoclopramide), MigraMax (aspirin/metoclopramide) which professionally I've never seen prescribed by my colleagues, and the prescription or OTC obtained Migraleve (paracetamol/codeine with buclizine antiemetic). It has an important place in the treatment of acute migraines (between simple analgesics of paracetamol or ibuprofen alone, and the triptans). Whilst the components can be separately & individually prescribed, in clinical practice this is never done and the fixed combination Paramax product is given. We quite rightly have an article on Migraleve, and this No2 (I'm guessing) UK product also is notable and should be kept.

  Whilst I'm happy with the use of combination name in the title rather than the brand name, it needs renaming from Paracetamol/metoclopramide hydrochloride to Paracetamol/metoclopramide, given that the form of the components is not generally given in combination article names (eg. Fluticasone/salmeterol, Ipratropium/salbutamol etc). I'll leave such renaming until after this AfD is closed. David Ruben ^Talk 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

  I (softly) recant on choice of name - its only available in UK as the branded product Paramax, and neither Amidrine (another combination migraine product within wikipedia) nor Migraleve articles are named for the combination, now if paracetamol/metoclopramide is available elsewhere in teh world under different brand names, then I would entirely agree with Paracetamol/metoclopramide. David Ruben ^Talk 02:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  It also appears to be sold as Migraeflux MCP (eg [1]). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. When I looked at it this morning with only one reference, I still thought it should be a delete, but I was pleasantly surprised at the additional references and explanation that have occurred since then and now think it should be a keep or merge, as suggested above. Renee (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Article defines the product, however it requires further elucidation with reference to its usage and other available alternatives, it can fixed by keeping the article and not by deleting it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep useful, sourced stub. It is far removed from the "nothing" I saw two days ago. No longer does it violate WP:1S by keeping in mind WP:SIZE. B.Wind (talk) 01:34, 24 April 2008 (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.