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 merge to Potassium iodide. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thyrosafe[edit]

Thyrosafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Another WP:NOTNEWS WikiLeaks cable-related stub that takes primary sources and passing mentions in news reports to justify an encyclopedic article on a topic that is best treated as a redirect to a subsection of Potassium iodide. Article was previously redirected[1] and reverted.[2] I nominate this article and leave it to the community to decide what to do. Viriditas (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I pointed out several months ago, WP:NOTNEWS is a policy which is always misused when mentioned in deletion discussions, and this is no exception. News stories shouldn't be treated from other coverage, and besides, the product really is not news. If you do a Web search on it you'll see most of the information about it predates the Wikileaks publication. The leaked cable merely demonstrates that this commercial product from Sweden, which otherwise might seem interchangeable and boring to most of us, is for some reason regarded as critical to the national security of the United States. True, I'm skeptical about that. (there are actually many competitors, even for municipal purchases within the U.S., though because there are only a few major iodine mines, also on the list, I couldn't absolutely rule out that they have impressive contracts in event of nuclear war). Still, the point is, it's notable and now more notable. It would have been a reasonable stub before the cable was published, and I honestly think it's only being nominated for deletion now due to that controversy. Wnt (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content with Potassium iodide, as that is the generic name of this preparation. JFW | T@lk 17:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a dissapointing nomination. There's ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article regarding redirecting and merging this article, discussion the nominator has not taken part in. This is not an appropiate venue for this debate. Were I not involved and I saw this nomination, I'd speedy close it. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not following you at all, Aaron. Are you saying that I'm uninvolved? Looking at the talk page, at least two proponents of the current article, Wnt and Silver seren, have each requested, recommended, or advised taking this to AfD. And, that's what I've done. If you could be so kind as to show me one, single reliable secondary source about this subject and this subject alone, I will withdraw the AfD. Viriditas (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Alternatives_to_deletion lists both merges and redirects. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion tells you to read the policy before you nominate something. There would be no reason for this to be admin-deleted even if we did what you nomination proposes and redirect it. This is not the appropiate venue to discuss the problem with the sourcing on the page. The article's talk page is the appropiate place to have that discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has already been a discussion about the problems over the last week. Proponents of the article will not budge and editors who attempted to redirect have been reverted. If there aren't any good sources about the subject, then we should consider deletion since efforts to redirect have been prevented. Viriditas (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This will be my last comment in this thread: The article was redirected, and that redirection was reverted. This is typical and accepted behavior. There has been little substantative discussion on the article talk page, and you have not taken part in that discussion.
          Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If that is true, then by your account, that must make me uninvolved. Great. If anyone would like to present a single reliable secondary source about the subject, I would be happy to withdraw this AfD. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Potassium iodide as individual pharmaceutical preparations are generally not notable in themselves. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It has nothing to do with whether they're generally not notable, it matters whether the coverage in this article makes this preparation notable, which you haven't addressed. Silverseren^C 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This has absolutely nothing to do with WP:NOTNEWS, so i'm going to disregard that part of the nom's argument. I was the one who unredirected the article after searching for sources and finding them. I turned the article from what it was before to what it is now. The sources I added to the article discuss specifically about Thyrosafe and do explain that they are potassium iodide tablets, yes, but I believe the coverage is enough to warrant an article on this specific brand, which is used fairly widely in the US. Silverseren^C 21:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, none of the sources are about Thyrosafe, except the primary ones. Viriditas (talk) 09:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any useful content to Potassium iodide per Mangoe. Beagel (talk) 13:06, 26 December 2010 (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.