Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cholesterol Depletion


 * 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   no consensus. I suggest if contributors' wish to merge the content then feel free to get doing that as soon as practicable. Once the merger is complete, then blank the page and put in its place a redirect to either Cholesterol or Statin once that is sorted. Nja 247 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cholesterol Depletion

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fork of cholesterol and statin (and duplicate with mevalonate inhibition) mainly intended to emphasise perceived side effects of statins. JFW | T@lk  06:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from article's creator and major contributor:
 * Objection
 * There has to be a serious objection to this move on the basis that cholesterol depletion is in the same category of importance and seriousness as the natural class of diseases called hypocholesterolemia but quite distinct in terms of etiology. This is about the artificially induced depletion of membrane cholesterol and its emerging clinical impact. This is a nascent topic and deletion would be premature given the papers accepted and undergoing final editorial preparation in a PUBMED indexed quarterly medical journal for publication this summer.  You have not understood th significance of the references already in place. You might suggest a re-naming of the phenomenon e.g Medically induced hypocholesterolemia and tranfer the contents to the Hypocholesterolemia page but the separate etiology might be a problem?
 * My particular objection would be withdrawn if there was a way of renaming or re-integrating this information into the hypocholesterolemia as a separate section on Medically-induced hypocholesterolemia category to allow the emerging multi-disciplinary literature on this phenomena to be properly cross-referenced for wikipedia users. The fields affected already include all areas of medicine (where lipid rafts, exocytosis and endocytosis are involved ) e.g. potentially all eukaryotic organs and organelles. We need to see a cross-referencing of this emerging phenomenon due to its multi-disciplinary consequences in all areas of medicine, cell biology and biochemistry. There is real growth in the range of areas impacted and the general nature of it means it can be a relative side-issue in a medical specialism (particularly cardiology) but serious in general practice. One spur to its increased volume of research has been the availability of squalene epoxidase inhibitors originally developed as a means of side-stepping some of the non-sterol side effects of statins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glynwiki (talk • contribs) 01 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Inappropriate use of primary sources and original research. Eg. Uses results from tissue culture to say low chol causes increased diabetes -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This diabetes link is a key issue for those of us studying exocytosis in cell membranes - I will provide a fuller set of citations on this matter for your consideration, as I think there is a proven mechanism between secretory processes and insulin release now that Xia et al have been confirmed independently and the retrospective  analyses of WOSCOPS, Jupiter and ENHANCE trials also suppports. Glynwiki (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - synthesis major issue. There may be some useful primary research material here for use in explaining single biological process, but overall makes wild leaps of inference. David Ruben Talk 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * please explain the "wild leap of inference" and it will be addressed - I am sure the latest edits will go some way to reassuring you of the validity of the review material and the citation of the supporting science. This unsigned message by Glynwiki (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a separate subject that can not be simply redirected to hypocholesterolemia, mevalonate inhibition or anything else. I do not see any WP:SYN problems. Author uses sources, as in any normal review, but he does not make conclusions of his own.Biophys (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the Issues
Thanks to all the critics and the supporters of this topic. I hope you can see that both groups have made me improve and extend the objectivity and clarity of the topic. I hope you are able to see the multidisciplinary nature of the issues and revalue this page upwards. I would like someone to contribute an acknowledgement of the achievements of statins in cardiology and acute post-op uses. This is not going to become a statin bashing page but is important in rebalancing the objectivity of the wikipedia content on this subject.

We have a way to go but understanding the non-cardiological issues of terpenoid and steroid loss is a valid, large and important topic in biochemistry and may benefit the focus of statin usage in cardiology. In fact I would expect that good documentation of this topic would be a boon for all parties who see the medical potential in this page. We may soon see a branch topic for squalene epoxidase inhibitors (squale-statins) below the pathway split for steroid and terpenoid creation. Glynwiki (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)80.189.7.125 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to cholesterol and/or statin as appropriate. Again, this is one of several inappropriate POV forks on the topic. There is no sense in trying to maintain multiple articles covering virtually the same ground. This is all the more so since these articles seem to be an effort to make an endrun around WP:WEIGHT and rewrite the content on statins from the minoritarian/fringe POV. MastCell Talk 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to statin. A side effect of taking too much of a kind of drug should be discussed in the article about the drug itself, ¿no?  A good deal of the contents are dreadful, but some has adequate sources and could be salvaged by copyediting.  What's salvageable belongs in the main article, not in a separate and largely ignored corner of Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Statin and/or Cholesterol as appropriate. A decent article could be written at some point about cholesterol depletion at some point (see, for example, Hartman 2005,, or Guardia-Laguarta et al. 2009, ) but the current body of this article is really about other topics; it is telling that none of the cited sources mention depletion in their titles. Until we have decent content in this area, we should not confuse the reader into thinking that we do. Eubulides (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect - page creator's revised POV   I have been most impressed by the appeals to simplfy, and merge the best points on this page with statin and cholesterol topics. Paradigm shifts and othodoxy are very uneasy bed fellows and our review  (In Press) as   -  . That makes it a little earlier to defend the independence of this page further. I would like to thank everyone for their time and guidance on this matter and look forward to the merged progression of the topics elsewhere.  Glynwiki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2009 (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.