Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norepinephrine (medication)


 * 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. Consensus is this is how medications are now being split on Wikipedia. WP:MED and WP:PHARM may be useful to review. (non-admin closure) -- Dane  talk  01:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Norepinephrine (medication)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It's nonsense to have this extra (highly redundant) article. Everything is (or needs to be) in Norepinephrine. Leyo 07:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the original motivation for a separate article was to have an article that could use Drugbox rather than Infobox neurotransmitter. See . The medication article is rather short which makes 1#Split the argument about conflicting manuals of style rather moot at the moment. I stand by my suggestion of modifying the infoboxes to allow embedding the drugbox (or at least the clinical data portion) inside the neurotransmitter infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks to see which idiot editor proposed this pointless splitting in the first place.... Oh, it was me :p Sizeofint (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Disclosure: I'm the editor who split the two; I am also the primary contributor to norepinephrine and took it to GA status.  I sympathize with the motivation here, but I don't think AfD is the right place to have this discussion.  The issues have already been discussed extensively at Talk:Norepinephrine, and it will be necessary for contributors to familiarize themselves with that background in order to have an informed opinion.  I believe the question ought to be handled with an RfC at the talk page, if anywhere.  Certainly the ordinary criteria for deletion do not apply here. Looie496 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * keep in general we are moving toward splitting articles like this. see Splitting articles about endogenous molecules used as drugs Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep Yes that is the way we are looking at dividing subjects that are both used as a medication and are naturally occuring molucules. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems that a few editors in en.wikipedia are really on the wrong path here. Luckily there isn't any other Wikipedia following that nonsense forking of a single chemical. The content of the two drugboxes is highly redundant. There is no doubt that if kept, this needs to be changed. --Leyo 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Leyo if you look through the main article's history, you will see that that infobox on the main artilce is Template:infobox neurotransmitter and has been since Sept 2015. Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the template is different, but the content is highly redundant. --Leyo 21:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. As noted by other editors, there is currently a consensus at WP:MED and WP:PHARM to allow separate pages for medications that are also endogenous substances. There's a clear rationale for doing so, based on what readers are looking for, and it is specific to these specific kinds of compounds, so this is not just any "single chemical", and it certainly isn't "nonsense". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * keep per the above 4 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge sorry but I have to say I'm with Leyo on this one, I feel these splits are unnecessary and potentially confusing to readers, and I don't feel they are helpful to the project as a whole. There may be some cases where there is so much to be said about the medical uses of an endogenous hormone / neurotransmitter etc that it is best to split it from the "non-medical" content, but I don't feel this to be the case for any of the examples we have discussed recently. And frankly I don't think there is consensus for a split either, having a handful of very active and vocal wikiproject medicine members who refuse to compromise and will just argue endlessly until they get their own way because no one can be bothered arguing with them any longer, is not the same as building consensus for a change of this nature. Meodipt (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep we need to split medications so people looking for rapid answers during an emergency can find them easily. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You are not serious, aren't you? If this is a major goal, pretty much everything but the following sentence should be removed from that article: "At high doses, and especially when it is combined with other vasopressors, it can lead to limb ischemia and limb death." --Leyo 08:25, 30 November 2016 (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.