Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fosfomycin/tobramycin


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Fosfomycin/tobramycin

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Each individual medication already has its own article. I don't think it is worthwhile to have another article devoted to the combination of the two medications, especially when this article merely describes the properties of each individual medication. Any relevant information about the combination of the two drugs can be added to the articles about each drug. &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with OP that until this drug combo is approved and marketed for CF, it doesn't need its own article. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:15, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Such an article is similar to Fluticasone/salmeterol.  It being new doesn't mean it doesn't exist or is not notable.  Should an article be made for every single possible combination? No, but this is being trialed as its own medication entirely.  The information is lacking but it is still notable in my opinion.  I believe the same reason for the previous example and others like Budesonide/formoterol is that the information regarding the combination could end up on both articles separately, and its easier and more appropriate to discuss the combination on its own article. &#124; pulmonological talk • contribs 06:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The difference between this article and the two examples you've given is that those two examples are extremely popular medications which are marketed under trade names and sell billions of dollars per year. The medication we're discussing here is (correct me if I'm wrong) in trials, is not currently marketed under a trade name, and is not currently for sale anywhere.  What if the trial fails, will this combination of drugs still be notable?  Do we have an article for every combination of two medications which has undergone trials and failed?  To say that this combination of medications will eventually get out of trials and be sold would be WP:CRYSTAL.  I'd have no prejudice against recreating this article if it is successfully trialed and begins selling.  &mdash;SW&mdash; soliloquize 17:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have a more relaxed view of notability than you. I would not be opposed to articles about drugs that have successfully made it through the trials this has.  I consider this article notable, and if it fails then that would be more information to add to article regarding its failure after so many successes.  In my view, wikipedia would more than likely be the article a person who heard about this medication would find if they were trying to discover its status, whether it be failed or passed or currently in trial with success.  I don't mean to insinuate a giant list of articles with just rejected statuses, but those with success that suddenly fail, its not necessary to split that information to become more difficult to find.  I like the idea that (within reason) people are able to easily find relevant and free information regarding the life, the universe, and everything. &#124; pulmonological talk • contribs 16:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I just need more information about the state of this drug. At first, you said the medication is in trials, then later you implied that it has successfully completed the trials.  Which is it?  If this medication is completely out of the trial stage and is being prepared for commercial production, then I agree the article should stay.  If there is still a chance that it will not make it out of trials and will never be a commercially available drug, then I think it is too early for this article.  Disclaimer: I don't claim to know anything about this combination of drugs, nor am I even remotely an expert on anything pharmacological.  &mdash;SW&mdash; gossip 17:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has successfully completed phase 1 and phase 2. The only remaining trial is phase 3 which is the "Therapeutic Confirmatory" phase.  I mean't to imply that if a drug has made it through the development phases all the way to the final confirmatory phase it would be wise to include.  Since by this point the drug has garnered enough media attention (however minuscule) to (in my opinion) have an article about its status, history and usage and its eventual approval or rejection.  Wikipedia is looked to for an explanation of literally everything and the people who are hopeful about these drugs that they hear are "having successes in trials" should have an article to read to help them educate themselves.  At least in my opinion.  &#124; pulmonological talk • contribs 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep If it is treated as a separate medicinal preparation in its own right, or a fixed combination therapy proposed as a standard, it's appropriate for an article. Mixtures can be as notable as individual chemicals   DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 4 January 2012 (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.