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 redirect to David Nutt. MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcosynth[edit]

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

No pubmed indexed reviews. No links from FDA or NIH. Content is simply not supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe redirect to the person's article which also looks like it needs clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I originally created that as a redirect to David Nutt, as it seems to be his "friendly name" for some vaguely-defined category of recreational drugs. It was later turned into an article by Magnolia677 (and I just notified that editor of this discussion). Nutt is certainly well known, and "alcosynth" was been widely discussed in recent "reliable" mainstream publications (but not necessarily medical publications). I suppose it is not too surprising that it is not discussed by FDA and NIH, for a few reasons: 1) It seems to be a kind of a concept name for a category of psychoactive substances, rather than being the name of one very specific drug; 2) It seems to be designed as something intended for recreational use – not a medication intended to treat any disease; 3) It probably hasn't been approved for use by any medical institution and probably also hasn't been explicitly prohibited either (perhaps because it is only loosely defined). —BarrelProof (talk) 03:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - My understanding of WP:SIGCOV is that "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article". Google brings back 65,500 links to alcosynth, and every major news organization around the world has covered it in detail:

I could not imagine how this article would not pass WP:SIGCOV, which alone is criteria enough for article retention. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anything indepedent of Nutt himself? All I am seeing is popular press of which the "Australian Journal of Pharmacy" as it is not actually a medical journal just trying to sound like one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently yes: in this interview with the CBC , Mark Haden, an Adjunct Professor at the UBC School of Population and Public Health focusing on drug policy research, indicates that there is previous (informal?) human research and soon-to-be-published preclinical toxicology data, and says he is "certainly interested in trying to find the researchers who might be willing to take a look at it and see what it actually does." The transcript calls the substance "AI," but from listening to the audio and from a search around it appears to be MEAI, for which there is prior art in Nutt's patent including this rodent study.Perhaps the two pages could be merged? Mikalra (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus ~~fucking~~ christ. Go write about this on erowid or some other place that accepts ~~bullshit~~WP:BULLSHIT. We don't. As Harmon says "Well, there isn't any research on anything yet." Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - No need to be a potty mouth, and "Christ" has a capital. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Telegraph, "alcosynth" is a benzo derivative and is different from the "chaperone" drug and they are meant to do different things - the alcosynth is meant to give you a safe buzz and the chaperone is meant to give a bit of buzz and make you not want alcohol.^[1] According to the New Scientist the "chaperone" drug is 5-methoxy-2-aminoindane, which was supposedly "created" by a recreational drug chemist who goes by "Dr. Z", who filed a patent application on the drug in November 2014 and said he was going to donate the patent application to Nutt's nonprofit.^[2] There is so much ~~bullshit~~WP:BULLSHIT being spouted and no scientific papers so who ~~the fuck~~ knows. But the people pushing this garbage into WP are not even dealing with what the shitty sources we actually have, actually say. It is all ~~bullshit~~WP:BULLSHIT and hype and sloppiness and there is little to nothing WP can or should say about any of this.

References

^ Burn-Callander, Rebecca; Cormier, Zoe (22 January 2015). "Get drunk without a hangover on synthetic booze". The Telegraph.
^ Michael Slezak (31 December 2014). "High and dry? Party drug could target excess drinking". New Scientist. Retrieved 31 December 2014. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

-- Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC)redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt ((although protected redirect to David Nutt will do)- notability is based on reliable sources;. reliable sources for WP:Biomedical information are described in MEDRS and for everything else in RS.

There are no MEDRS sources for this. As Nutt is British I also checked the NHS - nothing. Ditto NICE - nothing. As Doc James said, nothing in Pubmed. Broadening, even google scholar has only two things, neither meaningful.

Further, it is not even clear what "Alcosynth" is - what is the chemical formula? Does it actually exist or is this talk?

Every single "fact" offered about this is just "he said" malarky. Wikipedia is not the National Enquirer, for pete's sake -our mission is to summarize accepted knowledge (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING) - not to repeat scientific claims that are not accepted knowledge in the relevant scientific field, or even acknowledged by the relevant scientific field. This doesn't even to arise to WP:FRINGE as there is nothing sensible to say about it, as Nutt has published nothing.

Appears to be WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:TOOSOON and WP:GOSSIP not to mention WP:BULLSHIT.

Of course the popular press is going to go gaga over "hangover free alcohol", especially coming from someone like Nutt. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC) (amend to agree to redirect Jytdog (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per Magnolia. MEDRS is not any standard by which notability is measured. MEDRS is a guideline on what is and is not reliable information for medical claims. An article could be completely made up bullshit with zero redeeming medical or health application, but as long as it passes WP:V and the GNG, it can have an article. Likewise 'popular press' is not a reason to exclude material (if it was, Wikipedia would probably be under a million articles). As long as the subject has been covered in reliable secondary sources, its a valid subject for an article. Keep or merge to Nutt, as the argument that it is too-soon is somewhat valid - as early coverage on something that is clearly still being worked on. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only in death does duty end ack. Yes, what matters are reliable sources; there are no reliable sources about what Alcosyn is, or what it does, etc. I don't understand your position here. What can we actually say about Alcosyn other than citing reports of what Nutt has said about it? (which is what is in the article now, and is silly). Also, GNG = multiple independent sources about X. There are zero. I would accept there being something in the David Nutt article where "he said he created "alcosyn" but that's it. Am really committed to this article not existing - at least not now. (can you tell) (btw contrast this with Morgellons where there is no medical information about it (except to say that it doesn't exist) - the whole article is Society and Culture. But we can't even do that here) Jytdog (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all the sources Magnolia has posted above are reliable to state Alcosynth has made some (so far as I can see, unproven) claims by Nutt/Alcosynth. The claims may/may not be true. But they have been covered by reliable secondary sources which is all thats required. MEDRS is not required to fulfil notability. Article existance is on notability and verifibility only. Not on truth. MEDRS seeks to address the Truth due to the innate harm of unreliable sources and potential harm in the medical area, but it still does not supersede WP:V. If you are seriously arguing that MEDRS is required to demonstrate notability, expect to be slapped down. (And I think you know me well enough that I am waaaayyy over on your side of the debate on pseudo/fringe etc) The independant, MSN and le Express sources are really all thats required. Regardless of the underlying product being unproven medically. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I expect sloppy ~~bullshit~~WP:BULLSHIT to be treated as such. This article is indeed going to be kicked to the curb for the garbage it is. And it is really a shame you don't understand that N depends on reliable sources, and that reliability is defined by two guidelines in WP, depending on the content. Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to David Nutt, general press coverage of this is pretty much him talking about it - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Nutt, per David Gerard, though I would not object to Keep given coverage in sources we consider reliable for notability. My low opinion of the topic (as a physician-scientist) really isn't germane - it's not a question of efficacy - snake oil can be notable. — soupvector (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per nominator's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The news sources make it clear that this is simply hearsay from Nute "The Imperial College Professor and former government drugs advisor told The Independent he has patented around 90 different alcosynth compounds. Two of them are now being rigorously tested for widespread use, he said"

And adding reliable sources not about the subject in question does not support the notability of the topic in question. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from article creator - Somehow this conversation has strayed into chemical formulas, and the deletion nomination was unfortunately listed as a medical subject, which it isn't. This article is about a hopefully soon-to-be-unleashed synthetic drug that can get you drunk without leaving you hungover. And yes, the only support for the existence of this awesome substance comes from its inventor. Like snake oil, alcosynth may or may not work as promised. We'll have to wait and see, but that people are talking about it a lot, and that reputable media are reporting about it a lot, is undeniable.

We've all agreed on a few basic rules here at Wikipedia, and WP:N is one of them. And according to WP:N, this topic is without question worthy of a stand-alone article (just like Justin Bieber).

I would have expected a deletion nomination to cite WP:NOTNEWS, but there are thousands of articles about alcosynth, probably because Nutt is a respected researcher. And the 311 readers who come to this article in the past 24 hours don't want to read about Nutt (a merge of this article to his). They want to read about a cocktail that gets them drunk without puking at the end of the night.

Neil Armstrong insisted for years that when he got to the bottom of the ladder he actually said "that's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind", but that static had obscured the "a". How do I know it's true? He was the only one there. But Armstong isn't a liar, so we believe it. And Wikipedia writes about it. I believe Nutt.

The article certainly doesn't follow Wiki's medical or pharmacological style, but it doesn't have to, nor is it a reason for deletion. The article is well sourced, and people are reading it. Leave it alone. It will grow. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing WP can say about "a cocktail that gets them drunk without puking at the end of the night" that is not unsubstantiated speculative ~~bullshit~~WP:BULLSHIT Nutt is spouting as he tries to raise money, or that others spout in reaction, and WP is not a crystal ball, WP:NOTGOSSIP nor, per WP:SOAPBOX, is it a vehicle for Nutt's promotion of his venture (his column in the Guardian was basically "fund me" - read it with that in mind; it is transparent). Nutt is just doing what many entrepreneurs do (namely, pitching relentlessly) - he just happens to be already somewhat famous for his views on drug regulation and the Lancet alcohol paper, so people pay more attention. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC) redact Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i cleaned the worst of the WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:GOSSIP, WP:BULLSHIT, and most of theWP:COATRACKed health claims out of the article - had to leave the basic coatracked health claims or we would not have anything.... Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: - Your edit appears vexatious, ravaging the article just four minutes after I left a message on your talk page warning you to stop using foul language. Please take a moment to read Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not pointy. The content I removed violated WP:NOT in several ways; do not restore it. You can warn me all you want, but none of this will lead to this article being kept. The content was terrible. As it stands now it no longer flagrantly violates WP:NOT in several ways. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to David Nutt per above until there is substantial enough content to merit a separate article. Sizeofint (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yesterday, an editor deleted nearly the entire article, and was prepared to edit war over it. This certainly seems to violate the spirit of WP:EDITATAFD, which states that you "must not blank" an article undergoing AfD. Now, as expected, new comments on this AfD are stating there is not "enough content to merit a separate article". I'm concerned that the fairness of this AfD has been tainted by this editor's actions. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You keep doing anything but responding to the content problems that have been raised here. There is a solid consensus to redirect. If you want to move that consensus in a different direction you would do better to focus on the content issues. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems extremely clear cut to me: Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 16:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another behavioural car crash, and Jytdog is in the middle of it. This is deeply unimpressive behaviour, and the sort of thing that would get most editors a block, if not an indef one.

As to the article, then WP:N applies to this AfD, rather than MEDRS. It's unlikely that those outside the UK will be familiar with David Nutt, but he is a major figure around government policy, either as one of the establishment creating it, or later as an excluded gadfly criticising it. Either way, his views carry a good deal of weight. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As this stuff appears to be a one man show do you not think it makes sense to merge and redirect to him? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a reasonable outcome, but I think there is sufficient independent notability to support an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sure if WP were a gossip magazine where people can post speculations about things that don't exist and act as a bullhorn for people's use of media to try to raise money for new projects. But it isn't per WP:CRYSTALBALL, and WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:PROMO. No one has addressed these policy issues who has supported keeping the article. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"a gossip magazine" ? Are you seriously equating this with the Kardassians and the like? Please stick to a basis of relevant WP policy, not simply abusing and belittling other editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you actually read it, it is all "Nutt says X" or "Y says Z about what Nutt said." There is no accepted knowledge conveyed, because there is none. In fact we can say more about Kim Kardashian's butt than we can about "alcosynth" because her butt actually exists. (here are many pictures - none on the commons unfortunately). Please show me the structure of Alcoynth, or published data on what it does. Please. What you will find if you actually read the article and its sources, is that "Alcosynth" is all hype and gossip, and again, what we have is Nutt giving interviews and writing editorials to try to raise money - read his editorial. Science-y gossip, sure... but gossip. Not what we do here. One day we may be able to write an article on this. Not today. None of the arguments to !keep have a leg to stand on, in the face of the WP:NOT problems here and the lack of reliable sources that are actually about "alcosynth" and not about what Nutt says about this putative substance. SGOSSIP, PROMO, CRYSTALBALL. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David Nutt being a major figure around government policy is an excellent reason to have an article on David Nutt, but not a very good reason to have an article about how David Nutt announced he's working on a recreational miracle drug and he promises it'll be really great in the distant future when it exists. -165.234.252.11 (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to David Nutt. As it currently stands, not enough information exists to expand this page beyond a stub, so it makes sense to merge it into Nutt's page. Over time, the topic may gain enough notability (and available, verifiable information) to move back to its own page, but in the current situation it just doesn't make sense to have a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneftel (talk • contribs) 15:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to David Nutt as the subject's promoter. Otherwise, this reads like a WP:CRYSTAL. No sufficient information outside of claims by Nutt & speculation about potential uses of such substance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2016 (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.