Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergogenic aid


 * 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   keep. JForget 14:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ergogenic aid

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Completing nomination for User:Richard L. Peterson. Deletion rationale: Article is puffery, seems to me is to increase link count for Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. (see notice on the talk page) --Pgallert (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Needs verifiable sources to show notability, however I somewhat disagree with the puffery part. Optakeover  (Talk)   06:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

 Just what do you mean? The way you talk reminds me of User:Wikidudeman.Rich (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Steroids are not the only substances used as ergogenics, so there is more to write about. A search for research on ergogenics yielded a number of journal and book sources on this topic. If these sources can be accessed and used, I doubt it can fail WP:N and WP:OR and with proper writing, WP:PROMOTION will definitely not be a problem. Rather, we should be merging Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids with this article, considering that this article survives the AfD nomination and is expanded subsequently. Perhaps the original nominator should have assumed good faith before nominating. As what was said here, AfD should not act as a form of Wikipedia Cleanup Department.  Optakeover  (Talk)   11:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Were you addressing your comment to me? Optakeover  (Talk)   14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I assume your comment was directed to me since I was referring to you in my vote reason. So, you want to know what I meant. Well, basically what I meant is what I mentioned, that the AfD shouldn't be indiscriminately used to stimulate clean up efforts for articles. Even if the writing was written in a puffery-manner, it doesnt mean that the subject in the article is non-notable or that the article should be deleted. Therefore I took it as a bad-faith nomination. If you feel that that is not true, well don't worry because such comments don't really matter in an AfD discussion much as an AfD discussion looks for consensus. Optakeover  (Talk)   17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * keep--which I say very cautiously, recognizing the possibilities here for spam and misinformation. None the less, its an important topic and we ought to cover it.  DGG' ( talk ) 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * keep - with expansion and good links to and from related articles like Performance-enhancing drugs this could be a real benefit to the encyclopedia.+&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;&#124;+ (talk) 13:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per others...there's a viable article to be written here even if it seems primed to be a magnet for herbal-supplement spam. However, per Optakeover's search-results, seems like "ergogenic" is a noun (the chemicals are "ergogenics" not "ergogenic substances"), so ergogenic or ergogenics would be a more proper article=title. DMacks (talk) 14:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree to the name change but I think it will also be fitting if article merging, which I highly suggest is carried out in conjuction with this name change. Thus every main articles on ergogenics on Wikipedia can be under one article. Also if this article survives AfD then we can expand this article and make it a suitable for Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids to be merged to this article. Optakeover  (Talk)   14:29, 28 May 2010 (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.