Talk:Fasoracetam

"Primary" sources
These following primary sources were trimmed and left the page looking @ deletion. If any 2ndary sources could be found referencing these, please add them, they were:


 * "Involvement of cholinergic and GABAergic systems in the reversal of memory disruption by NS-105, a cognition enhancer."
 * "Effect of a novel cognition enhancer NS-105 on learned helplessness in rats: possible involvement of GABA(B) receptor up-regulation after repeated treatment."
 * "A novel cognition enhancer NS-105 modulates adenylate cyclase activity through metabotropic glutamate receptors in primary neuronal culture."

_Nagelfar (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that "http://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800003134" and the trials linked, are convincing and reliable sources. Redyaco (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is a very thin reed to hang a lot of stuff on. Where else is NFC-1 reliably identified as fasoracetam? Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * At this webpage: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02286817

http://fdasis.nlm.nih.gov/srs/ProxyServlet?mergeData=true&objectHandle=DBMaint&APPLICATION_NAME=fdasrs&actionHandle=default&nextPage=jsp/srs/ResultScreen.jsp&TXTSUPERLISTID=42O8UF5CJB&QV1=42O8UF5CJB Redyaco (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this important information is being suppressed inappropriately. If the deleting user wanted to figure it out, there is adequate information confirming NFC-1 and NS-105 are the same chemical. Why not find that out, and add the citation, rather than undo someone else's effort? Buddhafinder (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Clinical trial results
User:Buddhafinder -- about:
 * this 03:48, 27 May 2017
 * this 06:47, 1 June 2017
 * this 04:41, 3 June 2017

Please do read and follow WP:MEDRS. If you don't understand it, or understand why it has broad and deep consensus in the community, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I will admit that I am new at this. After reading about edit wars, I apologize for the second wholesale restoration of my contribution. The first restoration was a reinforcement of the contribution with additional relevant sources in an attempt to address your concerns.

It is of interest and important to the understanding of this compound that it has been acquired for phase 2/3 clinical trials in humans and future marketing. I agree that filling an article with primary sources is not desirable, but judicious use of primary source material, properly contextualized, from a quality source, and backed by additional facts, is allowed. There are dozens of secondary sources that I ignored as too detailed for this platform.

As for the sources cited:
 * The phase 1 human trial is considered to be peer reviewed by virtue of being presented at the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.
 * The Clinical Trials website is not a primary source, in the sense that it is a fact reporting the existence of a human trial.
 * The announcement by Medgenics that they acquired the drug and are engaged in Phase 2/3 clinical trials is also a supporting fact, not primary source research.

You state "we do not give this kind of weight to primary sources." I mitigated the weight by the use of the word "experimental" in the heading, identifying the study as a trial, using a peer-reviewed source, and did not imply or state any conclusion beyond the progression to phase 2/3 trial.

That said, I have found a secondary source citation.

I propose restoring an edited version of my original post, incorporating information from and citing the secondary source. If you agree to review that new contribution without declaring it to be part of an edit war, I will post it. If you are going to hold fast to a position of deleting my contributions rather than improving upon them, then I think we should seek other input. I will also reinforce my efforts to determine if deletion rather than seeking improvement is itself a violation of Wikipedia tenets. Clearly, you are more well-versed in the rules governing conflict than I. I would prefer to just resolve this in a way that improves the content, rather than become an expert in conflict management.

Buddhafinder (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * None of these sources are OK per MEDRS. Again, please read MEDRS, and if you don't understand it, please ask. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog I have read MEDRS, and I believe my latest post has secondary sources. Please don't just say read it and put the link again if you don't agree. If you don't agree, I am asking you to explain it to me, per your request. Otherwise, your deletions suppress important information about this drug, including its status and progression toward the approval or denial by the FDA. If you have better input, please improve. Please utilize the template tags on Identifying reliable sources (medicine) to mark sources with which you take issue. I'm sure you know better than I alternatives to these request that preserve content while discussion takes place. Best regards, Buddhafinder (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't generate content giving so much WEIGHT to primary source, and please avoid providing blow-by-blow WP:NOTNEWS content; we are an encyclopedia. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point about the blow-by-blow. I may want to put something back, but overall, I think you greatly improved the contribution. It is much less cluttered and more to the point.Buddhafinder (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you find it acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)