Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcosynth

Alcosynth

Alcosynth (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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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:

• CBC
• The Independent
• Le Express
• Huffington Post
• MSN
• CNN
• Australian Journal of Pharmacy

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)

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)

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)

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

• delete and salt - 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)

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

• 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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• redirect per nominator's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)