Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RU-58841


 * 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. j⚛e deckertalk 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RU-58841

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article still needs sources JacobiJonesJr (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It does and I've added a couple. Did you look for sources WP:BEFORE nominating this for deletion? Stalwart 111  14:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep. "Still needs sources" is not a reason for deletion.  AFD is not for cleanup. -- do  ncr  am  14:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * delete absolutely. This is bullshit promotion for yet another product sold as a drug that is not approved.  See here and many forums where people discuss it as a treatment for hair loss (!) (classic snake oil).  The guy who created the page says "this is a real commercial product" here. argh.  There are no pubmed reviews that discuss RU 58841; no reason to think it is notable except for people shilling it. Jytdog (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I've added a couple of sources from seemingly reliable medical journals. If it's a sham and reliable sources have said so then we should say so too - no argument there. But is it a notable sham? Stalwart 111  03:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * thanks for talking! those sources were there when i made my comment. :)  they are primary sources, and all Wikipedia content should be based on secondary sources - we need secondary sources to judge notability.  as I wrote, i didn't find any reviews (secondary sources) on pubmed. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"The biological activity of a series of nonsteroidal, pure androgen receptor inhibitors was compared using the Syrian hamster ear skin sebaceous gland model. RU 58841, RU 56187, RU 38882 and cyproterone acetate were applied topically for 4 weeks on the ventral ear pinna of sexually mature male Syrian hamsters. Their order of efficacy was as follows: RU 58841 > RU 56187 > RU 38882 > cyproterone acetate. Maximal reduction of 60% in the size of the sebaceous glands was observed in hamsters treated with RU 58841 at a dose of 10 micrograms per day. This degree of inhibition occurred without any systemic side effects as shown by the absence of inhibition on the contralateral untreated ear pinna. Longer treatment did not produce greater inhibition since extending the treatment period from 4 weeks to 12 weeks showed similar data. The effect of RU 58841 was reversible since the inhibited sebaceous glands returned to normal size within 4 weeks after the cessation of the topical applications. The potent localized inhibition of sebaceous glands by RU 58841 demonstrates the excellent potential of this compound as a topical drug for the treatment of acne and other androgen-mediated disorders."
 * Comment There's no "bullshit promotion" present. I've never seen a chemical article at AFD before, and I don't know what, but it is ... a chemical... it is something in nature... and there is a "CAS number" and if you click on that and go further, you get to 4 patents related to this chemical, and a number of papers in the literature studying it.  For example, i found:  "Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1995 Jun 12;761:56-65. Local inhibition of sebaceous gland growth by topically applied RU 58841.  Matias JR1, Gaillard M....the abstract for this paper is:
 * Frankly i don't know or care whether the research is right or wrong in its assessment of properties of this chemical, like whether or not it likely to be effective as acne treatment. But it is a basic thing, a chemical, and it is something that is studied.  So it seems to me that it is obviously notable.  Is there a wp:CHEMICAL-NOTABILITY standard or some other relevant guideline?   Again i am not familiar with Wikipedia practices with respect to chemicals, but it seems to me that if a chemical exists, has a name, has been studied in literature, then it would seem obviously notable.  So I stick with my "vote!" of "Speedy Keep" above, unless and until someone educates me differently. -- do  ncr  am  05:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * you are right,, i acknowledge that there was not and is not any bullshit promotion present. i was crabby when i wrote that, argh.  sorry all.  my point was that this is stuff is only "notable" for its being sold in a schlocky way as a hair growth product. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I don't know if those sources are of any value (there is some suggestion they are primary sources but I don't really understand that claim either) but I think there needs to be some separation between the the chemical and the pharmaceuticals subsequently created with that chemical as an active ingredient (or whatever term is used). We shouldn't be promoting the pharmaceutical applications with claims not supported by WP:MEDRS. But coverage of the chemical itself would seem to be okay. I think it's the former Jytdog objects to but the latter that doncram suggests should remain. Stalwart 111  08:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * It was invented as a drug candidate, and apparently picked up by internet shillers. As a drug candidate, it is health-related so we turn to MEDRS.  The notability standard for anything health-related in WP:MEDRS is discussion in a peer-reviewed review article (secondary source), and as I said, we have nothing there.... Basic research articles, like the two that you found, Stalwart111, are primary sources and MEDRS warns against basing content (much less whole articles) on primary sources, even more strongly than WP:RS does. Jytdog (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think we're at cross purposes a bit. I get that they are primary sources insofar as they provide conclusions about the pharmaceutical applications of the chemical and those conclusions would need interpretation. I agree we couldn't use those as sources for any medical claims which rely on our interpretation of those documents. But for the purposes of providing significant coverage in independent sources for the chemical itself (without any medical application claims) they are okay aren't they? I mean for the purposes of confirming the chemical exists and has a real-world application (as doncram suggests) those sources are okay? They can be used to create an article about the chemical with its basic facts but we couldn't use them as the basis of an article that makes any treatment claims. Have I got that right? (If not, where have I gone wrong?) Stalwart 111  13:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep meets the general notability guideline, although what can be mentioned in the article partly depends on WP:MEDRS as mentioned. The first result in a PubMed search is described as a review, although not specifically about it, and there are others that appear to be similar and mentions in a few books. I haven't searched very thoroughly, so it's likely that more can be found. Peter James (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being discussed in the review article "Investigational medications in the treatment of alopecia" and being the subject of several primary sources is sufficient evidence of notability in my opinion.  ChemNerd (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - A Google Scholar search finds at least one paper about this compound that gets 63 citations, so the chemical is of some interest to scientists. We can stay on the good side of WP:MEDRS by keeping medical claims out of the article. Even if this compound has no value in medicine it is biologically active and it sticks to androgen receptors. At present we can't even say that it has *applications* in medicine; such applications would require drug approval which has not been given. Note that we already have, which has entries for both drugs and non-drugs. It's hard to see an argument for deletion of the non-drugs. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2014 (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.