Talk:PZM21

Considering for deletion
I'm thinking about proposing this page for deletion under WP:TOOSOON and to a certain extent WP:MEDRS. It's basically based on a single paper, the conclusions of which are already being disputed by other groups. One group acknowledges the result but disputes the mechanism. Another paper I can't access but is described as a polemic in Scifinder. It's my inability to access the second paper which is holding me back. Can anyone access it and doesn't it find fault with the original paper? Project Osprey (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the concerns about WP:TOOSOON, though as has been discussed elsewhere WP:MEDRS does not apply here for a pharmacological tool compound for which there are no plans to develop it for medical use. I agree it is undesirable to make a page based on a single primary source, and I generally try to avoid this. However in this case I would argue that WP:N is met by the large amount of media coverage and public interest this compound received. Novel opioids, especially those from an entirely new structural class, inevitably attract an unusual degree of interest, both from opioid abusers and from officials tasked with attempting to prevent opioid abuse. I would argue this gives such compounds a degree of notability much greater than a new pharmacological tool compound in another area. I would also note that the widespread coverage this compound has received, has meant that it is already being offered for sale commercially, which again sets it aside from a "normal" newly discovered tool compound. Meodipt (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok I read the Nature paper and I don't understand what you mean that it is a polemic? Seems pretty positive to me, in their conclusions they say "Manglik and colleagues study is an impressive demonstration that new chemotypes can offer unusual biological opportunities, particularly for the study of opioids", the most negative thing they have to say is that "Whether the in vivo effects of PZM21 reflect only Gi/o-biased activity remains uncertain." but that really just reflects the fact that other groups have not had a chance to play around with the compound themselves yet. I would have thought a follow-up commentary in a high profile journal like Nature makes the compound significantly more notable! Meodipt (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * As I said I couldn't access the second paper, it was simple described as "a polemic" which normally mean a detailed criticism. It isn't really the notability that concerns me, its stating things as facts which might be in dispute. There does seem to be some disagreement as to its mechanism of action. --Project Osprey (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)