Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mevalonate inhibition

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 Statin. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mevalonate inhibition

Content fork of content concerning statins; essentially WP:SYNTH. Effectively used as a vehicle to emphasise perceived side-effects of this group of medication. Delete or maximally merge the most relevant content into the main statin page. JFW | T@lk 06:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree this should be deleted. Lots of original research here. It juxtaposes true statements to create a false impression. If statins cause Alzheimers than provide research that says so. Do not say: "When normal phosphorylation is interfered with by mevalonate blockade, our cells increase the production of Tau protein. Tau is the protein substance of the Neurofibrillary tangles common to Alzheimers and other neurodegenerative diseases.[citation needed]Neurodegenerative diseases include:Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ( ALS ), Primary Lateral Sclerosis ( PLS ), Multiple Sclerosis ( MS ), Multiple System Atrophy ( MSA ), Frontotemporal dementia." What research we have shows a trend towards benefit PMID 15883262--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make some important points, which will eventually be addressed but, in the interim, to avoid mis-interpretation I have removed the list subject to improved citations. Thanks for that point.Glynwiki (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the growing number of citations available in this field from peer reviewed science deletion would reflect very badlly on wikipedia - we can do better than that.

You make some good points but you should take a little time to reflect on the implications for lipidology, biochemistry and cell biology. The emerging position is based on Squalene epoxidase inhibitors science as well as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. It would be wrong to automatically dismiss laboratory science and evidence on the basis of medical statistics and opinion. We can repair the objections and engage in the data - we can do this section by section. Thanks for the guidance and I appreciate your adversarial points but we should reflect and explain the facts with citation support. Deletion would be an agressive over-response to this genuine issue and undermine the integrity and good name as much as allowing some serious errors to persist in this page so lets deal with it by citations and facts. Thanks for engaging with this topic. Glynwiki (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with WP:CRYSTAL? We don't usually write articles about "emerging positions" because encyclopedias are supposed to be collections of knowledge instead of speculation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WhatamIdoing. I should clarify by using past tense 'emerged'for biosciences and present tense for clinical practice. This is one of those multi-disciplinary paradigm ripples that moves slowly through the sciences. There are powerful lobby groups involved when orthodoxy is under review - so extreme caution is very understandable on this topic and related topics. I hope science prevails.Glynwiki (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although it has some content overlap with statins, the effect of the drugs on a specific metabolic pathway is a justifiable separate sub-subject. No WP:SYN problems. One should debate improvement of the content rather than delete this article.Biophys (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my. That article is a mess. What we have there is not really usable. I believe that the general subject of inhibiting this pathway could be turned into a suitable and appropriately encyclopedic article. However, this isn't it. Based on what I read in the article, I'd guess that the primary author is passionate about the subject but doesn't actually know anything about it (beyond whatever s/he read on a few very biased websites). By the time you strip out the irrelevancies (who cares if somebody got a patent that mentions this? Who cares if the Life Extension Foundation started a petition?) and the sources are either fringe promoters of the idea that statins are (nearly) always bad, unsupported opinion pieces (PMID 12508285), or are misrepresented/primary sources, and the like, you're left with very little. I could support either a stub-and-replace keep -- being fully aware that it's going to be a major hassle to keep it from turning into a biased WP:FORK -- or merge and delete to preserve the little bit of useful, non-misrepresented, mainstream information by moving it to other articles (possibly each bit to each separate article on the relevant enzymes, with a brief pointer in an article like Statins). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing the Issues

Thanks for the concerns and guidance. I have done a lot of work on talk pages and tried to be constructive positive and helpful. I feel that the original concerns have now been addressed. Doc James has been quite a tough critic and in some measure the improvements he has forced were very necessary and I thank him and invite him to continue his interest and constructive input.
The fact that this topic spans many discipline has been a challenge and my direct medical mentors have helped me address the issues raised in the early version. Please take on board the multi-disciplinary nature of this topic. Some medical specialisms can be too narrow in their remit. We should acknowledge the value of cardiology enthusiasm for this topic. There are concerns that this prevents a NPOV on statins. There are genuine balance issues in the overall wikipedia treatment of statins. Main issues to note here are possible blind spots in in the long-term non-cardiovascular issues. The trials could not could not fully address issues beyond the safety and efficacy and some were limited by use of surrogate end points and lack of total mortality transparency (e.g US Congress and ENHANCE in December 2008).
Retrospective analysis of clinical trial data has been very helpful on dealing with blind spots. I thank both supporters and critics and await developments. This topic has some way to go and I hope you now see the value. Glynwiki (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to statin. Textbook POV fork. It's not worth the effort to maintain two articles in parallel that cover virtually the same material, especially since one of them seems to have been targeted to rewrite the material from a minority point of view in violation of WP:NPOV. MastCell ^Talk 22:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - page creator's revised POV I have been most impressed by the appeals to simplfy, and merge the best points on this page with statin and cholesterol topics. Paradigm shifts and othodoxy are very uneasy bed fellows and our review (In Press) as - Wainwright G., Mascitelli L.,MD, Goldstein M. R.,MD (2009). "Cholesterol-Lowering Therapies and Cell Membranes". Arch Med Sci. 5.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) . That makes it a little earlier to defend the independence of this page further. I would like to thank everyone for their time and guidance on this matter and look forward to the merged progression of the topics elsewhere. Glynwiki (talk) 07:21, 5 June 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.