Talk:Radafaxine

Much of this comes from information in:

http://213.219.8.102/pdfs/gsk/cns_seminar/353162.pdf

Forgive me for my ignorance
I didn't realize that this subject could be considered to be trivial. I guess that I'll try to sell reasons for keeping it around, though:

1 - While I don't really know (explicitly) what "Crystal Balling" is, I think that it's fair to say that this is a very real compound that is being really tested on real people and has produced real data (in clinical studies). There's no speculation about this...see the link (which contains a powerpoint presentation from a researcher at GSK). If this drug will see the light of day is probably debate - worthy, but the facts presented (so far) are hardly "speculative".

2 - Wellbutrin (bupropion) is one of the best selling AD drugs in history. It seems to me that any drug in the pipeline that is a direct follow - up to bupropion (from a scientific and marketing standpoint) is (at least) noteworthy.

3 - For those who like to invest their money in stocks, information about drugs in a specific manufacturer's pipeline (as well as potential efficacy...or lack thereof, approval status, indications, current research, etc) should have *some* value.

4 - There is a fair amount of general human interest in antidepressant drugs (I believe) generally. The "potential next big thing" in this department should at least register on some radar screens.

5 - A general web search about this compound yields a large volume of information (a fair amount of which is not directly commercial).

6 - There is a lot of potential here for material on strategies that Big Pharma uses to perpetuate patent protection. In this case, one of the metabolites of a generic drug (bupropion) is being isolated and there is attempt to protect and market it as something "new". The value and justification of such a strategy seems worthy of presentation and this compound could be used to illustrate the point.

Still, I concede that I don't yet know enough about "what should be allowed" as an article to be able to completely defend inclusion of this subject as a wikipedia article.

I'll let the "content authority" dictate that one, I guess.... who is that again? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm not sure exactly what "crystal balling" is either, but it is evident from your references that this isn't merely an attempt to speculate on future events. I'll remove the deletion tag. The article seems to meet notability criteria, and all of the info in the article is covered by a reference. Some of the wording may need to be cleaned up a little. Phrases like "seems to be" and "appears to be" can give others the impression that you are speculating, even if you are really just conveying information taken directly from a reference. I'll see if can clean things up a bit. Jay &dagger;  Litman  14:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, the reference that I added appears to be a duplicate. D'oh. I'll see if I can find another one. Jay  &dagger;  Litman  14:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

In terms of notability....
Description:

" a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself."

Let's see:

Multiple - Well, at least three sources so far

Non - Trivial - At least two independent scientific studies... probably not in someone's basement.

Reliable - Probably not in dispute (check references)

Independent - Two of the three (so far) seem to be... one is clearly from GSK but hardly seems to be "self - serving" (more of a presentation of current clinical trials).

I'll wait for replies on this, but (obviously) I think that the "deletion sentence" isn't warranted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

Linked from statement in bupropion
An addition to the bupropion article which describes Radafaxine (with a reference) as a metabolite of bupropion has been made. We'll see if it stands the test of time, as well! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.32.49 (talk) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

...and on to the "Wikify" tag
OK, so this article is no longer deemed "crystal balling" and is probably "notable". A question remains about if it is or isn't "Wikified".

I've found a couple of tests for "Wikified" articles:

1 - Does it contain copyrighted material? In this case, no.

2 - Is there another article on the subject (is it reduntant)? I can't seem to find anything else on wikipedia about Radafaxine...so, probably not.

A more explicit definition goes something like this:

Wikify- "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia. Noun: Wikification. Sometimes shortened to wfy. "

So:

Wiki markup? Check

Internal Links? Check (both from and to)

Incorporated into the whole of Wikipedia? If this means links to and fro, then...Check.

Maybe there are other things that need to happen to make it "more wikified"...I won't claim to be an expert on "wikification" or what the "sufficient wikification standard" is. So, I'll leave it up to someone else to decide.

"Links" message
Presently, there are (at least) five articles that link to Radafaxine. I don't know what the standard for "enough links" is, but I'm going to remove the "Few or no pages link to this one" message.

If someone else diaagrees, put it back up.