Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ATC code A07

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATC code A07

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These lists appear to just be reposts of the original ATC lists. There is no encyclopedic coverage of the topics within them. I think the whole set should be deleted because we are WP:NOT a directly or almanac; additionally in my experience these lists are often out of date and therefore have the potential to be incorrect and, because they are just reposts of the primary source, contribute to errors if they are used. Like other sources, interested editors can go directly to the primary source, rather than the copy/pasted list here.

I am proposing a single instance of the list first and, if there is consensus, the result of the set can be nominated. I look forward to hearing the opinion of other editors. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tom (LT) (talk) 07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This looks like a reasonable list-class article satisfying WP:LISTN. Most entries have articles themselves and the inclusion criteria derive from a WHO classification scheme, surely a notable and reliable source. As a navigation article placing these drugs in perspective, it looks fine to me. Claiming a WP:NOT directory isn't relevant for well-sourced navigation article with clear inclusion criteria per WP:CLN; the category system is a directory, too, and an integral part of WP. Fear of a maintenance burden is never a good reason for deletion. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not much to add to Mark's reasoning except that the ATC lists are definitely not out of date as I've been taking care of them. (I think they may have fewer typos than the lists on the WHO site.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful list. Important that this content is maintained if there are new drug classes. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Per Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists we can have lists on whatever we find encyclopedic and useful, which makes list AfDs always a bit weird. This list is one of ~100 similar pages in Category:ATC codes setup to mirror the content at [1]. I agree that these aren't encyclopedic, and are just a mirror of an index. While WP:NOT doesn't say "Wikipedia is not a mirror of published indices", I think pages like this are outside the scope of our project. As far as a navigational aid, the category system is indeed a directory and an integral part of WP; I'd support (and be happy to help with) turning these lists into categories instead (e.g. Category:Drugs with ATC code A07). Ajpolino (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: If we are going to use WP:LISTN, concerning "reliable sources" as a rationale to keep, please note One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed by independent reliable sources.... WP:Reliable sources states The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception.... I added one primary source, which is better than none, but better sourcing is needed. I am on the fence because I can see importance as a "navigation aid"-- Otr500 (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The sentence you quote from WP:LISTN states that notability is established "if [the list] has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", which is satisfied by refs 1 and 2. This is different from inline refs for the individual list items. The latter issue was discussed at Talk:ATC code V10, where User:WhatamIdoing stated that "You don't need an independent source or a secondary source ... when the non-independent primary source is authoritative for the specific content in question." However, if we really need to reference the items to the individual sub-pages on the WHO site, I could do this in a more standardised way with a template. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether a primary source adequately verifies a specific claim is a different question from whether we should have this page at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone actually tried looking for sources? Doesn't this seem like the kind of subject that an intro-to-pharma textbooks ought to at least mention (or, indeed, organize its entire contents around)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any but it would seem there would be some. The "group or set" source is what I was looking for. I haven't been involved with any of these but as a set of navigational aid lists I can see a reason for keeping. Of course this would be more important as long as Anypodetos (or someone) was around to update. Otherwise they would become outdated and better as categories. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Another concern is that even though consensus might keep this one, thus possibly placating the Nom, someone else might take issue later and it starts all over. Something like 15 pages with many listings on each page and someone may wonder about the same 3 or 4 sources. At least the source I added shows the sub-pages are listed. If a template makes it easier I am for it because I don't think the mentioned refs 1 and 2 does it. -- Otr500 (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re sources: Apart from refs 1 (NIH) and 2 (German Ministry of Health), which have short explanations of the ATC code system, there's quite a number of sites that use ATC codes – e.g. the UK drug information, Drugbank, Germany's Rote Liste (no open access), the Austria Codex – so I think there is no question about notability of the topic. But these sources are ill suited for inline citations, as each ATC code is on a different page, and they don't address the nominator's concern that we are just reproducing the originals from https://www.whocc.no/ with no encyclopedic content on the ATC pages themselves. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, so possible solution? -- Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on what this discussion is actually about, of which I'm not really sure any more. Are we still talking about (a) no encyclopedic content, and/or (b) secondary sources establishing notability, and/or (c) inline citations for the individual sections or even the individual list items? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reasonable encyclopaedic topic, properly sourced. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.