Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naphcon-A

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. LFaraone 00:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Naphcon-A

Naphcon-A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Doesn't assert notability with reliable sources; only cites the subject's webpage. ❤ Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 02:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\^{Let's convene} _{My patrols} 02:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - At first glance, this would appear to be a keep. Seems like a fairly popular and noteworthy over-the-counter drug. Would agree with nom that the article could use a lot of work. NickCT (talk) 13:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment There are other combination drugs of this class, and a combination article on them would be more appropriate DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Comment Could also merge to Naphazoline, the active ingredient. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: GNG is one of the most important guidelines here and if it's breaking it and no-one can find sources to save it then what do we do? We send it down the river to deletion. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 09:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I found 2 academic papers specifically about Naphcon-A:

• DELL S, RUBIN J, ABELSON M, et al. EVALUATION OF NAPHCON-A AND INDIVIDUAL CONSTITUENTS BY PROVOCATIVE ANTIGEN CHALLENGE. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science [serial online]. n.d.;35(4):1292. Available from: Science Citation Index, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 24, 2013.
• LANTNER R, ESPIRITU B, TOBIN M. EFFECT OF NAPHCON-A ON HISTAMINE SKIN-TEST REACTIVITY. Journal Of Allergy And Clinical Immunology [serial online]. n.d.;91(1):364. Available from: Science Citation Index, Ipswich, MA. Accessed April 24, 2013.

If you do an academic search (I used EBSCO), there's a bunch of briefer references too.--Colapeninsula (talk) 12:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep I added some more information to the article and a reference to the FDA information verifying almost all of what is said in the article. I consider the FDA information on a drug to be reliable source because the information has been vetted by the FDA, an independent party from the manufacturer. In addition to the in-depth FDA information, two in-depth reliable sources were found by Colapeninsula. There are also about 2,400 hits in Google books for '"Naphcon A" -wikipedia'; this is a widely referenced product. Multiple in-depth reliable sources show the topic to be notable per WP:GNG. The article itself could use more references and development, but has no major problems with spam or a non-neutral point of view. A notable topic and surmountable problems with the article, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggest that the article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

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.