Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

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 delete. Biblioworm 19:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation[edit]

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

This article does not cite a single reliable independent source that gives more than a passing mention to the subject. It serves mainly as a WP:COATRACK to attempt to legitimise a condition which is not recognised in the medical literature. Guy (Help!) 19:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —Мандичка^YO 😜 19:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few glancing mentions in RS, but not the sort of coverage sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Alexbrn (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is counterproductive when you exaggerate. There are two reliable independent sources that discuss the foundation and its research from internationally respected publications. It is also not accurate to say the condition is not recognized in the medical literature. There are a handful of meta-reviews in the medical literature that acknowledge the condition although they do admit we need to learn more. For example, start with [1], [2], and [3]. This is an orphan illness caused by a pharmaceutical product so you will never see the same level of public interest as you will for a more mainstream illness or one where pharmaceutical industries have an incentive to acknowledge it exists. Regardless of how this turns out, if this page is deleted it should be revisited once the foundation gets more media attention which will inevitably occur once the studies are published in what looks like the not too distant future. Doors22 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the article contains no reliable independent sources which go beyond namechecks. You interpret the very short mentions differently, but then, you have been pushing "post-Finasteride syndrome" for nearly five years, almost form your first edit, so it seems likely that you are either a True Believer or, quite likely, a member or supporter of this group. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doors22: "that discuss the foundation and its research" ← I'm sorry, could you provide links to where this "discussion" of the foundation (yes, the foundation itself) occurs? Alexbrn (talk) 21:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Finasteride. The subject is important to those who are using or thinking about using these drugs. As indicated by Doors22, there are some independent WP:RSs. WP:Truth comes into play. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already cover this in Finasteride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nobody's trying to suppress The Truth™, the issue is whether this pressure group is actually notable in its own right. Compare for example the Morgellons Research Foundation which has many more passing mentions but was also deleted because none of them are about the foundation, they only mention it as a group trying to legislate a non-disease into existence. Guy (Help!) 09:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was 7&6=thirteen's implication that anybody was trying to suppress the truth, but now that you bring it up it has felt like several editors have been trying to do so since initial links were established years ago. If this were not the case, why is every addition met with such hostility when Wikipedia is updated in an attempt to reflect the most up-to-date publications and incremental evidence demonstrating the syndrome? Over the past several years, nearly a dozen WP:RS have been added to the medical literature and the FDA even changed the adverse event label yet little has changed on Wikipedia to reflect the growing credibility.Doors22 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not accusing anybody of willfully suppressing anything. I simply think that this organization exists, and can best be understood, in the larger context of Finasteride, both pro and con. Fortunately, I still have my hair, although it is all grey. As my brother-in-law (who has a widow's peak) says: 'Better turncoats than deserters.' 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about the foundation, not the syndrome. There are sources that discuss the foundation. BluenR (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Please add them to the article, which currently has no sources that discuss the foundation. A quick reminder of WP:GNG: "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 or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail." That's a hurdle the existing sources absolutely do not clear. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable group. Article is a coatrack for a disputed clinical entity. Many many many threads on Talk:Finasteride on this. JFW | T@lk 20:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only coverage seems to be the single review on HealthNewsReview.org. That is not enough to cross the threshold demanded by WP:ORG. jps (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of coverage, no need for a redirect, no need for a merger. It is fully covered at Finasteride#Society and culture. Don't forget to remove the PFS Foundation and Post Finasteride Syndrome Foundation redirects, although a bot should get them if you do. --Bejnar (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on coverage of the Foundation in reliable sources (I just added another). This does not imply legitimacy of the syndrome - that is a separate matter. — soupvector (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2015 (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.