- 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. The merger discussion can be continued on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Side effects of penicillin
- Side effects of penicillin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems like something that should be condensed and put on the page of penicillin. It doesn't need its own article. Leggomygreggo8 ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Obviously the article is still under construction with much more content to be added. The side effects contained in the article Penicillin are incomplete, outdated and very limited. It is quite common to create articles that are specifically meant to provide detailed information related to the side effect of a medication. If you type in the words: "Side effects of" you will find dozens of articles dedicated to side effects. If you read the Pencillin article, you will see that it quite large and cumbersome and would benefit in making it shorter and easier to read. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into penicillin. It's a normal part of a article on a drug. There might be reason for a split if the matter is in some degree controversial, but it isn't. Nor is the Penicillin article longer than most articles on impt drugs. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is a matter of controversy that is contained in the article about how one of the side effects is that penicillin is implicated in the development of antibacterial resistance. Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. At least for now. A WP:AfD template was placed on this article just 15 minutes after a serious and committed editor (and a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar with a user history of legitimate work on medical articles) created it. I find it sad when there's such a rush to discuss deletion of serious-looking articles that are patently evolving from legitimate and committed users. (Of course, preparatory work in the user's Sandbox, or a word left on the article Talk page might have avoided this issue arising in the first place. Article creator: please take note) Its edit history shows that content continues to be worked on by Barbara_(WVS). I recommend letting that content evolve - it is doing no harm and is not violating any policies at present. The article on penicillin was not yet at the point where WP:SIZERULE suggests it might be acceptable to consider splitting (it has about 26k of textual content in a 47k article). I'd be happy to see a merge template on it (as per DGG), should it not end up appearing worthy of its own article - or it could become a "List of" page for side effects. But this is genuine content from a genuine editor - lets not rush to put this sort of contributor off, please. I'll be watching the new page and will gladly make the necessary recommendation if I'm not convinced it's going in the right direction. But it's definitely not yet going in the wrong one. Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into penicillin. There is already an adverse reactions section on the main penicillin article that includes some of the information on this page. It seems better to merge the additional information and references into the main article to prevent the two pages from preventing conflicting information as new references/research are added to one or the other. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 01:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can see why you would say these things. New, relevant, and secondary sources references and research are lacking from the penicillin article - in a sense it would have been more difficult to change the side effects section than to begin a separate article. I first chose to edit the side effects in the main article, but it was so outdated, the section would have been empty. Again, there is more content to add and enough for a stand-alone article.
- Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 11:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had not been aware of the large number of side effect articles already present. That being the case, I agree with Barbara (WVS) that a uniform policy should be in place. I still think a merge policy would be the best, but whether merged or kept, it should apply to the other side effect articles as well. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 23:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - At the point in time that the article was nominated for deletion (Note that it was not nominated to be merged, which might have been more appropriate), 3 references existed along with a bibliography. As of this day, the references number
1323. Content specific to side effects and not general information about penicillin are cited. I still maintain that there is enough information available regarding side effects for a stand-alone article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge back into Penicillin. There are
somea lot of articles where we have done a WP:SPLIT for adverse effects but there is no need here. Would have been better to propose a split on the Penicillin talk page first. Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) - Comment - Jytdog is correct, we have consistently done splits on medication articles related to side effects with many stand alone articles that could be merged into the main articles on the medications. For example:
- List of side effects of bupropion
- List of adverse effects of valproate semisodium
- List of side effects of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole
- List of side effects of tramadol
- List of side effects of aripiprazole
- List of adverse effects for escitalopram
- List of adverse effects of risperidone
- List of adverse effects of ribavirin
- List of adverse effects of sertraline
- List of adverse effects of trazodone
- List of adverse effects of valproic acid
- List of adverse effects for chlorpromazine
- List of adverse effects of paroxetine
- List of long term side effects of antipsychotics
- List of adverse effects of lurasidone
- List of adverse effects of nilotinib
- List of adverse effects of doxepin
- List of adverse effects of axitinib
- List of adverse effects of trazodone
- List of adverse effects of olanzapine
- List of adverse effects of venlafaxine
- Imidacloprid effects on bees
Maybe we should be discussing a policy change rather than just this one merge.
- Best Regards,
-
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did not say that we consistently do splits. I said we sometimes do and that you would have been wise to seek consensus for a split before you did this. I !voted to merge and still do.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This article now contains 23 references that establish its status as a stand-alone article. None of the other stand-alone side effect articles, authored by Doc James, a prolific and highly respected editor are not being considered to need a merge. In addition, the other stand-alone articles contain references authored by the drug manufactures themselves and may contain material that would reveal a conflict of interest. All editors are considered to have equal footing, but perhaps some editors are more equal than others. I may be singled out here for some reason and I may not. I propose a change in policy in the stand-alone articles on medication side effects. Please respond to this proposal. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did not say that we consistently do splits. I said we sometimes do and that you would have been wise to seek consensus for a split before you did this. I !voted to merge and still do.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a subpage that goes into more detail on side effects. I am a fan of subpages if done appropriately. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 21 May 2017 (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.
- 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. The merger discussion can be continued on the article talk page. Sandstein 13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Side effects of penicillin
- Side effects of penicillin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems like something that should be condensed and put on the page of penicillin. It doesn't need its own article. Leggomygreggo8 ( talk) 16:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - Obviously the article is still under construction with much more content to be added. The side effects contained in the article Penicillin are incomplete, outdated and very limited. It is quite common to create articles that are specifically meant to provide detailed information related to the side effect of a medication. If you type in the words: "Side effects of" you will find dozens of articles dedicated to side effects. If you read the Pencillin article, you will see that it quite large and cumbersome and would benefit in making it shorter and easier to read. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 16:53, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into penicillin. It's a normal part of a article on a drug. There might be reason for a split if the matter is in some degree controversial, but it isn't. Nor is the Penicillin article longer than most articles on impt drugs. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- There is a matter of controversy that is contained in the article about how one of the side effects is that penicillin is implicated in the development of antibacterial resistance. Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. At least for now. A WP:AfD template was placed on this article just 15 minutes after a serious and committed editor (and a Wikipedian Visiting Scholar with a user history of legitimate work on medical articles) created it. I find it sad when there's such a rush to discuss deletion of serious-looking articles that are patently evolving from legitimate and committed users. (Of course, preparatory work in the user's Sandbox, or a word left on the article Talk page might have avoided this issue arising in the first place. Article creator: please take note) Its edit history shows that content continues to be worked on by Barbara_(WVS). I recommend letting that content evolve - it is doing no harm and is not violating any policies at present. The article on penicillin was not yet at the point where WP:SIZERULE suggests it might be acceptable to consider splitting (it has about 26k of textual content in a 47k article). I'd be happy to see a merge template on it (as per DGG), should it not end up appearing worthy of its own article - or it could become a "List of" page for side effects. But this is genuine content from a genuine editor - lets not rush to put this sort of contributor off, please. I'll be watching the new page and will gladly make the necessary recommendation if I'm not convinced it's going in the right direction. But it's definitely not yet going in the wrong one. Nick Moyes ( talk) 01:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Merge into penicillin. There is already an adverse reactions section on the main penicillin article that includes some of the information on this page. It seems better to merge the additional information and references into the main article to prevent the two pages from preventing conflicting information as new references/research are added to one or the other. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 01:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I can see why you would say these things. New, relevant, and secondary sources references and research are lacking from the penicillin article - in a sense it would have been more difficult to change the side effects section than to begin a separate article. I first chose to edit the side effects in the main article, but it was so outdated, the section would have been empty. Again, there is more content to add and enough for a stand-alone article.
- Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 11:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I had not been aware of the large number of side effect articles already present. That being the case, I agree with Barbara (WVS) that a uniform policy should be in place. I still think a merge policy would be the best, but whether merged or kept, it should apply to the other side effect articles as well. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 23:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - At the point in time that the article was nominated for deletion (Note that it was not nominated to be merged, which might have been more appropriate), 3 references existed along with a bibliography. As of this day, the references number
1323. Content specific to side effects and not general information about penicillin are cited. I still maintain that there is enough information available regarding side effects for a stand-alone article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 11:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- merge back into Penicillin. There are
somea lot of articles where we have done a WP:SPLIT for adverse effects but there is no need here. Would have been better to propose a split on the Penicillin talk page first. Jytdog ( talk) 16:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC) - Comment - Jytdog is correct, we have consistently done splits on medication articles related to side effects with many stand alone articles that could be merged into the main articles on the medications. For example:
- List of side effects of bupropion
- List of adverse effects of valproate semisodium
- List of side effects of trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole
- List of side effects of tramadol
- List of side effects of aripiprazole
- List of adverse effects for escitalopram
- List of adverse effects of risperidone
- List of adverse effects of ribavirin
- List of adverse effects of sertraline
- List of adverse effects of trazodone
- List of adverse effects of valproic acid
- List of adverse effects for chlorpromazine
- List of adverse effects of paroxetine
- List of long term side effects of antipsychotics
- List of adverse effects of lurasidone
- List of adverse effects of nilotinib
- List of adverse effects of doxepin
- List of adverse effects of axitinib
- List of adverse effects of trazodone
- List of adverse effects of olanzapine
- List of adverse effects of venlafaxine
- Imidacloprid effects on bees
Maybe we should be discussing a policy change rather than just this one merge.
- Best Regards,
-
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did not say that we consistently do splits. I said we sometimes do and that you would have been wise to seek consensus for a split before you did this. I !voted to merge and still do.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - This article now contains 23 references that establish its status as a stand-alone article. None of the other stand-alone side effect articles, authored by Doc James, a prolific and highly respected editor are not being considered to need a merge. In addition, the other stand-alone articles contain references authored by the drug manufactures themselves and may contain material that would reveal a conflict of interest. All editors are considered to have equal footing, but perhaps some editors are more equal than others. I may be singled out here for some reason and I may not. I propose a change in policy in the stand-alone articles on medication side effects. Please respond to this proposal. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 20:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- I did not say that we consistently do splits. I said we sometimes do and that you would have been wise to seek consensus for a split before you did this. I !voted to merge and still do.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
-
Barbara (WVS)
✐
✉ 20:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is a subpage that goes into more detail on side effects. I am a fan of subpages if done appropriately. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 21 May 2017 (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.