Talk:Candocuronium iodide

Article being tagged for clear deficiencies
This article bears 17 of 18 inline citations from primary sources, and so only one secondary source to support the primacy its content and neutrality of its statements. Moreover, 14 of the 17 primary citations are to the work of the same pair of collaborators (IG Marshall and H Singh). These, with particular word choices suggest a scientific POV issue that needs to be addressed. Note, I am not questioning that this pharmacologically active substance is notable; I am simply stating that this cannot be seen as a neutral, encyclopedic article as it presently stands. Tags are therefore added. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am now questioning notability
Absence of secondary sources, lack of solid, broadly interesting medicinal chemistry content (no descriptions of changes to improve agent properties, only in-house numbers and no structures of series members, etc.), and broadly self-promotional tone make this a candidate for redaction (to remove uninformative and self-promotional language), and then merger if no substantial secondary sources and other improvements appear within 3 mos. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)