Talk:Thyrosafe

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Potassium iodide.

Discussion of article sourcing

Location of the discussion thread

<Thread moved from User_talk:Wnt#Thyrosafe>

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Thyrosafe, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cited several sources. They should be enough to get a stub going. Wnt (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not good enough. There are six sources cited, only one of which is considered reliable, and that happens to be a primary source. As you have been reminded, time and time again now, we do not create articles based on primary sources alone. Keep in mind, there is now a record of these warnings and your continuing editorial behavior on this matter for others to review. This is the same thing you did on Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. When you created CFDI, there were few secondary sources on the subject, and the one secondary source you did use made it clear that it was not going to publish the list, which you did anyway without the sources in the article to back it up. You can't keep doing this, and if you do it again, I'm going to keep warning you and filing noticeboard reports. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that in concept I was very close to simply redirecting this to potassium iodide and adding a blurb about it there. The main reason I didn't was that because the CFDI list specifically said this particular manufacturer was critical, I judged that the commercial and regulatory considerations are more important than I would have assumed otherwise. It would be best if some things like the "only manufacturer certified by the FDA" claim were explored fully and put into context.

I do not believe that there is any offense against Wikipedia in starting new articles with sources, no matter what the sources are. I believe the only noticeboard available to you for this is AfD, which would hopefully draw a line impartially regarding how big a stub has to be. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this discussion would be more appropiately placed on Talk:Thyrosafe? - brenneman 02:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this discussion is about user behavior, it is more appropriate for a user page. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Brenneman. Viriditas should be better helping 1)helping in searching secondary RS (there are quite a few for thyrosafe; check Gbooks) 2)in case these don't show up, finding a suitable merge target, instead than hounding Wnt, especially when the latter just tries to add verifiable content to the encyclopedia. Wnt may be in the wrong but Viriditas pestering him is not the way to create a collaborative enviroment. --Cyclopia ^talk 02:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can agree all you want, but you're both in the wrong. The user page is used for specific warnings about user problems. The talk pages are used to discuss article issues. Three blind men observing how dark the day is, doesn't change the fact that the sun is shining. Viriditas (talk) 02:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<End of thread moved from User_talk:Wnt#Thyrosafe>

I've moved the thread, as there was rough consensus that it belonged here. - brenneman 03:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of the sources

The sources provided:

"Why Thyrosafe Potassium Iodide?". Thyrosafe. [1]
This is a primary source. It's deemed reliable for "basic" and on-aggrandizing material. I'd prefer a secondary source for this "only" part of this statement. - brenneman 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Consumer package insert". [2]
I'm unclear of how the information is important to the aritcle, but that's an editorial decision, not a sourcing one. With respect to this as a permissable source, it's as per point 1. - brenneman 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Thyrosafe". PrescriptionDrug-info.com. [3]
"ShopWiki search". [4]
"Product site". [5]
This three looks fine to me, normal use of secondary sources. Unless there is some issue with the reliability of these sources? - brenneman 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has indeed expressed concern that these are not reliable sources. He has however asked that I not move his comments to what I believe are the appropiate venue, so you'll have to follow the diff to see them. - brenneman 04:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote in the first edit summary, I may have "bent OR a little" in including the commercial sources. My interest was in gauging whether the Thyrosafe plant was truly critical in the acquisition of potassium iodide stockpiles by the U.S., which obviously I can't address directly on my own under WP:OR. But I believe I can fairly address the question of whether competitors exist providing the same product at equal or lower prices. I actually saw a few primary sources about local governments buying other brands which I haven't included - I only added the sources I needed at the time to resolve the issue in my mind.

I know that in general Wikipedia articles seem wary to include dollar-and-cents figures for common products, but it really doesn't seem sensible to me to exclude such basic information. Wnt (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"REQUEST FOR INFORMATION:CRITICAL FOREIGN DEPENDENCIES". Cryptome. 2009-02. [6]
I am unable to acces this site to confirm it. My understanding of the discussion above is that this is a primary source, which again is fine for non-controversial information. Is there dispute that primary sources can be used in articles? - brenneman 03:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow a "." got onto the end of that URL - it works otherwise. Wnt (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection

Redirecting the article minus all of the details is not the best option. There was no AfD for this. But it is frustrating to push endlessly for the inclusion of some minor scrap of content I couldn't care about --- maybe the lesson is just that we need to learn to trust and rely on quality copyrighted sources for anything detailed, even if it's only a lowly Google search, because free collaborative databases are so easily degraded. Wnt (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support redirection, based both upon the content prior to redirecting and to the more general principle that appears to be applied to similar products. - brenneman 03:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On unredirecting this article

First off, let me say that I am very offended by this. The use of a warning template on a regular user was extremely rude and there was no "close coordination" or "tag-teaming" going on. I simply saw a discussion about the article on my watchlist on Wnt's talk page and decided to recreate the article (after verifying through sources that it was notable). Also, if there are any "behavioral problems" going on, it's on Viriditas' side, not mine. As I indicated when I unredirected the article, any user who disagrees with me is free to take the article to AfD. But Viridatus' actions are definitely not okay. Silver seren^C 08:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, if you'll read the directions on the box, Articles for deletion is explicitly not the place to go to discuss a redirect. If there's consensus on the talk page that it occurs, it occurs. I'm having a bit of confusion when reading the time stamps on the diffs, but to me there is currently not enough discussion to support either course of action. Silver's response in un-redirecting, however, looks like a perfectly fine use of "revert" in the {Bold/Revert/Discuss} wash cycle. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did the redirect for a number of reasons. The main one is that after digging for drug notability guidelines it seemed to me that particular brand names are avoided and dealt with in the relevant article. On the other hand, Potassium Iodide is a compound so I was not sure of the best approach. But, on balance, there was no real claim of notability of this drug (significant coverage in reliable source). As it stands the sourcing is now better, but still not really establishing any form of significant coverage. However, it's not my speciality. Someone else will have to take a look. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]