Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-cycle therapy

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The result was merge and redirect to ergogenic use of anabolic steroids; AfD withdrawn by nominator in favor of a merge/redirect, based on discussion here. MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-cycle therapy

Unreferenced for quite some time. Article refers to unapproved use of various medicines to "minimize" the side effects of anabolic steroid abuse. There are no reliable medical sources on this practice on PubMed that I could find, and Google search returns various bodybuilding forums and magazines with no reliable sources. This article actively promotes an unapproved and potentially dangerous practice; it is the #1 hit on Google; and it cannot be rewritten because I can't find any reliable, independent sources. I feel strongly that deletion is the best option at this point. MastCell ^Talk 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Basie (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no reference than it should be deleted. ie not verifiable.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I have redirected the similar, but shorter, articles steroid cycle and steroid stack to sections of Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. Those topics lack sufficient sources for detailed articles. Unlike these two concepts, which are well-known in the medical literature, even if not so well studied, post-cycle therapy is barely mentioned in medical literature. PMID 11929356 mentions the use of hCG post-cycle, but only as anectodal evidence from one of Dan Duchaine's books. Basically, I agree with MastCell that there's very little scientific literature on this, and the little there is can be said at Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids. I'm not sure why we need a long discussion to decide this... Furthermore, minimization of side-effect of AAS in general (not just post-cycle) is a poorly studied issue. Despite this, the FA-class article on AAS has a large section on minimization of side effects. I've tagged it as WP:SYNT for reasons explained at Talk:Anabolic_steroid#Synthesis. Xasodfuih (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be fine with merging and redirecting, assuming there's no objection. I brought it to AfD because I wasn't able to find any good sources on this subject, and thus there was nothing to merge - but I could be happy with either solution. MastCell ^Talk 20:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've written the little that is known about this at Ergogenic_use_of_anabolic_steroids#Minimization_of_side-effects after you removed the massive WP:SYN over there. Although I've not used any of the text in the article up for deletion, redirect seems the best option given that someone might search for this (there are some 50 hits per day on this little page). Xasodfuih (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids, since the only source I can find that uses this term is this, which is not reliable by any stretch of the imagination, I suspect this idea is a commercial invention. No RS = no article. Might be a search term though, hence the reidrect. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete per WP:V. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, I find plenty of fora (and the term "bitch tits"), but nothing resembling a reliable source discussing the term. It seems to come up often enough that a redirect would be useful. Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle looks like the best target. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there's no objection, I propose (as the nominator) that we close this AfD and redirect post-cycle therapy to ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Minimization of side effects. The discussion can always be re-opened, or restarted, but a redirect seems appropriate given that there is now a somewhat better-sourced section at the main article. MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect Wether or not the practice is "unapproved" or "potentially dangerous" (one editors opinion) is not really relevant (and that sort of POV should be kept out of AFD nominations by the way). That fact is post cycle therapy has been done since at least the 1970's and is still being done by bodybuilders and athletes everywhere. As part of overall steroid use it is notable. Plus, there is numerous literature on this subject, see this article and it's references [1], not to mention a plethora of back issues of Muscular Development and Muscle Media, plus it's covered in numerous books including those written by Flex Wheeler, Ben Johnson's former coach Charlie Francis and training partner Angella Issajenko, the book "Steroid Nation" by ESPN writer Shaun Assael; numerous issues of The Anabolic Reference Update published by Bill Phillips (author) and Anabolics 2009 by William Llewellyn of which there are 150,000 copies sold - and that only scratches the surface. I think at minimum this should be merged to Ergogenic use of anabolic steroids#Steroid cycle. By the way guys, there's more to establishing notability than just running a few keywords through Google. Doesn't anyone visit a library anymore?--Yankees76 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2009 (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.