Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Finasteride#Adverse effects. When closing deletion discussions, admins should weigh the strength of the arguments in addition to the number of users making them. Wikipedia has high standards for medical articles, and, when considering the strength of the arguments offered below, there seems to be a consensus that this article is not supported by appropriate medical sources (WP:MEDRS). Mark Arsten (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome

[edit]
Post-Finasteride Syndrome (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)

Content fork of finasteride. Already discussed there with sufficient weight. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, how can someone check all references in two hours. This is a new article with all references are needed. But, I really wonder, how someone can read and check all of them in less than two hours. Even the term is valid. This is ridiculous. If you don't have the articles, get them and read them. --Brainbug666 (talk) 00:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Brainbug666 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • This article is fully referenced to actual scientific studies and data. The information appears to be displayed accurately, and unbiased. Post-Finasteride Syndrome is now a medically recognized condition by many physicians within the medical community and this article is totally correct in laying out the facts regarding the condition. Those seeking to delete this article should be considered biased or perhaps working for the drug's manufacturer Merck themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.27.163.166 (talk • contribs) — 99.27.163.166 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • References in this article are being weighted much too heavily and there seems to be a lot of conjecture and discussion that has not been obtained from the sources. The first is a single case study on one patient. References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. References 5, 6 and 8 all contain significant biases ("...Study limitations include a post hoc approach, selection bias, recall bias..."). 25-29 are particularly poor. There are some acceptable references such as 14, 15, 16, 20 and 22, but all of these already exist and are discussed in the finasteride page. This article does present an apparent bias, and one example of such: suggesting an increased high-grade prostate cancer risk but not including a more up-to-date reference that indicates that it does not cause it (see finasteride). Since the only acceptable references are already included and discussed in the finasteride article, I can't see this one staying around without inclusion of some much better sources. The most I can ascertain is that case reports exist, but this has not been medically quantified or qualified aside from studies with significant self-disclosed flaws. This doesn't warrant a dedicated page or anything more than a section within the finasteride article. Please refrain from suggesting editors are biased or are working for pharmaceutical companies.DangerGrouse (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
the user DangerGrouse says, "The first is a single case study on one patient. " What is not true. 698 Clinical analysis in young patient with persistent sexual dysfunctions after finasteride assumption to prevent male pattern hair loss. So where did you read its only one Patient? This only shows, you did not read it or even have it. But for your Info, "We enrolled in a retrospective study 78 patients affected by PFS" The user says"References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies." Count the animal studies in the finasteride article. the user DangerGrouse says,"References 5, 6 and 8 all contain significant biases." What about the significant biases in the finasteride article, where you can find many studies, done by pharmaceutical companies? What lead me to this statement of the user Dangergrouse, "Please refrain from suggesting editors are biased or are working for pharmaceutical companies." The user DangerGrouse says, "25-29 are particularly poor." Well, this are only a few references from newspapers, for the public interest and do not supp. any science background. Funny he mention that. The term Post-Finsateride Syndrome is used by many patient (just have a look on Propeciahelp.com), MD´s, scientists, media, people and lawyers. The PFSfoundation is also leaded by MD´s. It was also topic at the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine. This can not be discussed away. --Brainbug666 (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia content (especially medical safety and efficacy claims) is strictly governed by policies and guidelines. To understand the objections to this article you'll need to read and fully grasp Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and WP:POV FORK. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS) warrants its own wikipedia page. There is much more evidence and reseaerch interest in PFS than Post SSRI sexual dysfunction (PSSD) and PSSD has its own wikipedia page. The study that launched the PSSD wikipedia page had just four subjects while the Dr. Irwig study had over 60. This was the major health alert on ABC News and NBC News, along with appearing on the front page of Yahoo! There are also the Dr. Goldstein and Dr. Traish peer-reviewed papers. There is massive research interest in Post Finasteride Syndrome for several reasons. With billions of dollars in lawsuits at stake, Post Finasteride Syndrome is quickly becoming a hot topic in health, finance, lifestyle. Post Finasteride Syndrome deserves its own Wikipedia page. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Gilmour120 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Wikipedia content, especially medical safety and efficacy claims, is strictly governed by policies and guidelines. To understand the objections to this article you'll need to read and fully grasp Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "debate" shouldn't exist, not the article. PFS is a medical condition recognized by various MD's and PhD's around the world. Not to mention several prestigious medical and scientific institutions.--99.27.163.166 (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user/admin 'Jfdwolff' wants the article deleted because its a "Content fork of finasteride." But this argument is untrue as (despite the name) this syndrome can occur as a result of a number 5alpha-reductase enzyme inhibitors, not just Finasteride. Therefore this argument is NOT valid. As the article meets all other guidlines with respect to deletion it should be kept. Thanks! JacksonKnight (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate Postorgasmic illness syndrome for deletion. It looks to me like it breaches our content guidelines too. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources cited in the article demonstrate that side effects of finasteride have been studied, as is the case with any modern medicine, but provide no evidence that this has been recognised as a syndrome by any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. For the avoidance of doubt, I have no bias, not having heard of finasteride before today, and have no connection to Merck. Let's keep conspiracy theories out of this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user Phil Bridger says, this article provide no evidence that this has been recognised as a syndrome. What is not true. Please, if you dont have the sources, why do you take part of this discussion? The user says, he has not having heard of finasteride before today. Is the user able to have a look on the sources? Is he than able to say if they are valid or not? How can this be user Phil Bridger?
"The mentioned side effects are described as reversible. However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."
Taken from the first source. --Brainbug666 (talk) 19:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No thats not correct, you are thinking about something else. I am discussing the first reference in this wiki entry. This is a peer-reviewed paper published in an academic journal that uses the "Post Finasteride Syndrome" name. This is all the evidence this wiki entry needs! I only posted that link because it contains the abstract.JacksonKnight (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can people please stop accusing me of not checking the sources when they clearly haven't done so themselves? That edition of European Urology Supplements has as its subtitle, "27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology – Abstracts: Paris, France: 24–28 February 2012". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and is written by University Profesors, it is also a secondary source for the name "Post Finasteride Syndrome". In fact this meets every 'reliable source' WP:MEDRS criteria, therefore this wiki entry should stay. To disagree you must clearly state why this article breaches Wikipedia's guidelines or you have no counter argument.JacksonKnight (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abstract itself is confusing and poorly written (ex: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled"). The study retrospectively enrolled 78 participants that presented persistent symptoms, but then goes on to say that these men were somehow given questionnaires before they started treatment. The only way this would be possible is if the researchers knew all men in the study would end up with these rare symptoms, which is quite unlikely. Additionally, the results of the hormonal tests were not discussed in the results, which leaves me to wonder why.DangerGrouse (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the syntax of the article has much to do with its reputability. When examining an article, I would think one would concentrate more so on the authors -- who, as has been mentioned above, are respected professors -- than on what some might perceive as a sub-par writing style.--Clampdown33 (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Berger said, "The sources cited in the article demonstrate that side effects of finasteride have been studied, as is the case with any modern medicine,"
An extremely ignorant and presumptuous comment. Modern medicine doesn't scratch the surface of the known mechanisms of actions and side effects of a drug. Even the Accutane Wikipedia Entry mentions that much of accutane and how it affects a patient isn't known. Here is an article that meets Wikipedia's standards. It explains why side effects from drugs might persist. It's well known that drugs like finasteride cause long terms side effects, the reasons are just now being studied. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987709002916 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not ignorant at all. The fact that side effects have been studied does not mean that there is a recognised syndrome. We have coverage of the side effects of this drug in its article, which is the appropriate place. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely ignorant Phil. You seem you think you know more than world renowned neuroendocrinologist Dr. Alan Jacobs, who discussed Post Finasteride Syndrome on Anderson Live. Dr. Jacobs has treated hundreds of patients with Post Finasteride Syndrome, and you claim you haven't even heard of finasteride before today. lol.
  • There is a known syndrome called Post Finasteride Syndrome. Dr. Jacobs let the world know Anderson Live. Dr. Irwig studied it his research. That's the point of this Wikipedia entry, to expand people's knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree that this syndrome does not appear to be appropriately recognized. The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum (see discussion archive in Finasteride) are also included. The extent that these sources convey is the observance that there are case reports of individuals exhibiting various symptoms, but the specifics (cause, symptoms, incidence) are anything but clearly defined. It doesn't appear that this is even medically classified as a unique condition, let alone one that can actually be named and exist in it's own article. The take-away from these sources (the fact that case reports exist) is already discussed in the finasteride article. If an appropriate PMID containing "post-finasteride syndrome" is available, I would argue that this should exist in it's own section within the finasteride page. Unless there are a significant number of additional sources, this simply doesn't need it's own article.DangerGrouse (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Papers published in peer-reviewed journals by leading academics and doctors is 'appropriate' - see the first reference. There are no biasis. Your personal beliefs and/or medical ideas are pointless in comparison. I also already explained above why it needs its own page. Thanks.JacksonKnight (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about we delete the PSSD wiki page if we're considering deleting the PFS Wiki page then also. They don't have the nearly enough science as PFS and they don't have a non-profit organization or people protesting outside drug companies' buildings demanding SSRI's be taken off the market.68.96.97.46 (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it World famous neuroendocrinologists Dr. Alan Jacobs mentioned the term POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME in front of millions of people on Anderson Live Anderson Cooper or anyone else didn't question the existence of the syndrome because POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME is known to exist. The only guy who questions the existence of POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME is an anonymous internet poster who doesn't know the difference between it's and its. Gilmour1201 (talk) 20:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot be used to establish the validity of a syndrome before there is a consensus among experts published in WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Most thoughtful readers here probably agree it looks like there is some kind of syndrome here. But please understand the limitations of Wikipedia, and what we can and can't do here. If you read and understand WP:SYN and WP:MEDRS you'll probably realise what the issue is here better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every single one of the posters posting for delete are in-fact biased. The conditon has been confirmed by Dr. Jacobs, Dr. Irwig and Dr. Traish as is properly and precisely referenced in the article. There are much more ambigious articles currently on wikipedia. This condition is by a huge distance far, far more medically verified than other such articles, therefore this heavy push to have the article deleted needs to be considered as potentially biased or even a direct action of and by Merck employees themselves.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — 24.227.159.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please nominate the articles you refer to for deletion. This article, presently, does not conform to our policies. Our policies are a little complicated and take a little time to master, but if you read WP:MEDRS, you'll be on your way to understanding the problem here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is deinitive and purposeful effort behind the scenes to have "this" particular article removed. The reason behind which is obviously to obscure the facts that have been confirmed by multiple doctors and the FDA themselves.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason behind the "delete" comments here is explained in each comment. I realise it's more exciting and much easier to understand if you simply attribute it to a Merck conspiracy. But the real explanation is very boring: the article, as it stands, violates our content policies. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the user DangerGrouse says, The most relevant sources disclose significant biases, and several animal studies that have been discussed ad nauseum. What is not true Have you read the first source? Please, quote where you can see that. The use DangerGrouse seems really have a problem with counting, as shown here too. He says, there are several animal studies. I only count 2 that even are not important for the article.
  • References 11, 12, 13 and 18 are animal studies. Please do not suggest that I can not count when I have already specifically addressed these in a previous post. If you feel these are not important for the article then you agree that they should not remain.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was even one of the hot topic on the World Meeting on Sexual Medicine
I would love to know, why things like the Postorgasmic illness syndrome, Persistent genital arousal disorder or PSSD got their page and PFS, what gets a lot of media attention should be deleted. Can someone please explain me that? The term is used by tousands of people, I think this has now be proven more than often.
All the MD who are talking about this have no clue? Have a look who they are.
Nearly every arguments against this article are untrue or like, There are 20 1/2 animal studies and just adding this WP:MEDRS. What has nothing to do with the article, they can be removed and change nothing. Another is asking for a scoure, and doi or PMID...what easly can be found in the article references, it´s a ISSN, anyway. Than some posted a abstract and the other is asking if this is a poster...this is really all very ridiculous. Do people here read the arguments of other? Do the people, who say delete it read really the sources? This all makes competence of wikipedia (en) and some users very doubtful for me. This artical even has been discussed long ago in German wiki and kept. So it was proven in the German wikiWP:MEDRS that this article is valid. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia is a separate project with its own community determined inclusion policies and practices. That an article appears in German Wikipedia does nothing to show that the article or topic meets English Wikipedia standards. (and for all we know, the article in the German Wikipedia doesn't even meet their standards its just that no one but POV pushers are aware of its existence) -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of this is relevant to this discussion. If you have issues with the articles you mentioned, you are free to take it up through the appropriate venues. This isn't about what you feel is fair or just, so please stick to discussing this article specifically.DangerGrouse (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No conspiracy, actually. It just fails our content guidelines. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The "arguments" being made now are simply too ridiculous to be capable of being refuted" Stop the meaningless, troll posts Phil. This is a serious discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.97.46 (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Perhaps a "Criticisms" sections or "limitations" section would be warranted. But to delete the POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME article would limit people's knowledge of this serious disease. Gilmour1201 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"There is an extensive such section" No there is not Phil.
I linked to the "adverse effects" section of the article on Finasteride, which constitutes over a quarter of the article. How does it not exist? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never said 'the "adverse effects" section of the article on finasteride didn't exist' Philly Billy, so don't bog down the discussion with irrelevant comments. I said, in the POST FINASTERIDE SYNDROME Wikipedia Entry, a section of the limitations of our knowledge about the Syndrome is warranted. For example, why do only a subset of men get affected? - as asked by Dr. Traish in his peer-reviewed article. What epigentics changes in the Androgen Receptor does finasteride bring about to induce the syndrome? 68.96.97.46 (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. After reading all the cited studies it is clear that there is a post finasteride syndrome and that finasteride can be devastating to a mans health.
It is hard to understand anyone's agenda for disagreeing with the syndrome or not acknowledging it after reading the cited information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbypig (talk • contribs) 22:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC) — Chubbypig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - the SPA sock-puppetry going on here is absolutely spectacular. We now have 6 different IP editors / SPA new users all in favor of keeping an article created by (you guessed it) yet another WP:SPA. All with the same writing style, same inability to adhere to WP:MOS, same lack of civility and same near-hysterical support for the same (and only) article. Enough for me to go and start an SPI. Just ridiculous. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brainbug666. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sufficiently numerous medical articles available and listed on this page to justify the existing of a Wiki on Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Debating whether a statement within the article should exist is a potentially valid but completely separate issue. Doors22 (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize: The term Post-Finasterid Syndrome is used in this article, taken from the first source
"The mentioned side effects are described as reversible. However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."WP:MEDRS
There is no argument against this.
The term is also used by thousands of male patients and MD´s most of them are the leading in their field. One of them is the chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine and the others are based in a university.
The argument against this is, they are all biased. Can someone prove this, some please explain why they are biased or what is the reason they are biased? I don't see any, even the first source. Is that also biased? Why should they be biased? They don't get money for warning people and if, by whom? All I can see is that people, who are against this article are biased also and some can have more good reason to be biased. Or is this wrong?
The term is valid.
The term is also used by the media and used by medical professional there. There are countless newspaper and TV reporters, about this topic. Just google it.
Is there any argument against this or can some show that this is not true? no
There are other articles like, Postorgasmic illness syndrome, Persistent genital arousal disorder or PSSD who are on wikipedia and get less attention than PFS and have less valid sources. Or is this untrue?
Can some explain that?
The article about the PFS has been discussed in German wikipedia before and the term was proved and the article is valid.
Any arguments against this?
Arguments against this article are poor, everybody who wrote about this topic is biased, only two MD believe that, there are several animal studies inside. some sources are not good and the one talks about the sources that only belongs to public interest, sorry no one will ever write a medical book about a guy who did a hunger strike. So I can not find a medical source for this you will sadly only find this in a newspapers or TV. this is really ridiculous. --Brainbug666 (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree this article should stay. It contains factual data about a recently verified medical condition that appears to be generating a lot of interest in the medical and scientific communities. If anything this article may need to be expanded upon in the future. Definitely a keeper.--99.27.163.166 (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)BPPH[reply]
  • Medical conditions that have been discredited, such as Morgellons, have lengthy Wikipedia pages. If that's the case, medically accepted diseases such as Post Finasteride Syndrmome, which can be induced by just about any 5-AR Inhibitor, (not just finasteride)certainly warrants its own Wikipedia page. Epigenetics "side effects" from prescription drugs is a hot topic in many scientific fields, and world class research institutions are investigating the problem. Mhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987709002916 Gilmour1201 (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gilmour1201, sorry but this is also no argument. Please, have a look, what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is a encyclopedia that only shows secured knowledge. The term Post-finasteride Syndrome is knowen. It even doesnt matter if this term is used by a smal number of pat. But it matters if this therm is used by literature before what is the case here.

Than the question is, is the Post-Finastide Syndrome of public interest? Yes, because this topic has been very present in the media, what also can be proven in many cases as we can see above. I would love the remind each, who is writing here to read the WP:MEDRS what is wikipedia and what it is not. Sadly this whole discussion is, from the early beginning full with arguments that does not belong to wikipedia. The user, who started this says, this article or this term has been discussed before. So he dont have to read the sources, what is realy wrong. I dont know how or what articles has been used about this topic before. But the sources I used need to me checked and a big point is, if the user dont have the source he need to get it. A source you have to pay for is not against the wiki WP:MEDRS. If some used a book for his aricle he is not responsible to support other users with the book, that they can prove it. This is nothing like I dont what to give out this literature but it has something to to with copyright, I simply can not post here a full text, because I am not a pirate. So if someone wants to prove a source he sadly have to do what everybody else has to do and buy it.

If you dont have the source you can not judge. Some user here simply write the first source is about one patients, what is not true, as you can read above. Many statements done by some users here are wrong. Than finaly a user pops inside and claims, I´m all the users and IP´s that are posting here. Than the IP´s are fom other countrys, now its a army of "meat-puppets" as the user claims. Now everbody who says this article shout keep is a puppet in the eyes of one user. It is the same, like not every user who says, this article should be delet, is a employee of the vendor company. I would be very carefull with such statements cause this is not the place for any conspiracy theories. I´m realy shocked, what is going on here and I´m still waiting for a response to my arguments above. Some people seems to respont very quick with some statements, but if you claim something, please prove this. This whole thing is finaly far behind the good taste and please keep in mind, what wikipedia is and what it is not. Not a place for malicious misrepresentation. Thanks. --Brainbug666 (talk) 08:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brainbug, I implore you to read and digest other user's comments before responding and abstain from going off on tangents so that this discussion can be kept relatively tidy. You don't appear to have understood the fact that Gilmour1201 actually agrees with you and wants to keep this article as it stands. The fact that you are arguing against him indicates that you may not fully be considering what other editors are trying to express. I don't say this to be insulting, but I wanted to highlight this so that this discussion may be productive. DangerGrouse (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are many problems with this article. It may include copyright violations: the first sentence is identical to the first sentence of this activist web page. Google Scholar and PubMed searches find only one use of the term (the first citation in this article, a short, poorly-written report of a small retrospective study). The article "proves" the validity of the construct by synthesising findings from primary sources, in contravention of WP:OR. That is, the article as it stands fails our policies. All of this can be fixed of course, but once that's done there is nothing left but content already covered very well in our article, Finasteride. This article adds nothing to the encyclopedia except OR and it enlists the encyclopedia in support of one side of ongoing litigation. If you want to achieve recognition of a syndrome, the first place to do it is in reviews in peer-reviewed scholarly literature, professional guidelines, and graduate-level textbooks. Once that's done, we will welcome an article on this putative syndrome, based on those sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony, the term is used in literature. It is in the first link. It has been repeated several times. Please read the article and the sources cited before deciding. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilmour1201 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the article. I'm a very experienced Wikipedia medical article editor. It is my opinion that this article does not meet Wikipedia's policies, and it contains nothing of value to an encyclopedia that is not, or could not be, well covered in Finasteride. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Constant repetition doesn't make it true. It has already been established above that that source is an abstract of a conference paper, not a peer-reviewed article. See [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you user Anthonyhcole for bringing up some real arguments. May I ask you If you have read and have that small retrospective study? As you say. Please read again what is WP:OR again, we discussed this a time ago in german and this argument even the synthesising findings came also up. this are good arguments. But, again, please read what is secondary literature. This is not OR.It is not synthesising finding, because this term is used in the public by many dif. MD´s, Pat. and so on. Please avoid to rate things in future like saying a "this activist web page" or "putative syndrome"
I dont see where this is a activist web page is that here also activists web page? Well, like I wrote, we discussed this in german before. The results were that this is no synthesising finding and the sources are not OR. Thats why the article was not deleted. can you explain that? OR do you have here other ratings? May be I dont see them, but the things I read here are the same in german. Here are less valid articles like I wrote before, why do you keep them and this here is such a big thing? The things you keep here never would have any chance to be keeped in german. I finaly have one quetsion, to you, who are "we"? I´m a also a member of wikipedia. --Brainbug666 (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks user Phil Bridger, first you say you never heard of finasteride before today and now you are very deep inside. What is now true? Again you say things that are not true, this is not only a an abstract of a conference paper. The only fact is that the term is used by medicals and even, when it is used also on a conference this shows even more that this term is in use by MD. figthing about a definition if its a conference paper or a peer-reviewed articleis to funny, you can do this with neraly every article. That makes me wonder, why no one did that at the Postorgasmic illness syndrome? And I´m also very experienced in publ. and what thewy are. Everybody knows, that a study, a paper, article or whatever is done before a conference and while on it. Where it´s later publ. doesnt matter, as long as its publ. But now we are only talking about one article. This article shows that the term is in use and it is not the only thing that shows it. Why dont you sendet so much time for other articles? Anyway article like the 5AR are nearly only OR. --Brainbug666 (talk) 09:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had not heard of finasteride until I saw this discussion, but I am capable of investigating sources via my university library. We do not base Wikipedia on editors' personal knowledge but on what has been published in independent reliable sources, which, for medicine, are described in WP:MEDRS. And I do spend time on other articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this is very ridiculous, you keep such a article like the Postorgasmic illness syndrome (just look the first sourcres anyway look all the sources) and here we are discussing about conference papers or peer-reviewed article. But what you are doing here, makes the english wikipedia very dubious for me. --Brainbug666 (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that article should be deleted then start a deletion discussion and it will be tested against the same policies and guidelines. This discussion is about Post-Finasteride Syndrome. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Bridger there has been a deletion discussion on this article before and has not been tested against the same policies and guidelines. If you would have done a simple klick on it you can see it. Anyway, I still ask myself what are your are you doing in dis discussion anyway, first you say, you never heard of finasteride before and now you seems to know everthing about it. The only thing you do is repeting thing other user said. This sounds for me like a case of "meatpuppetry". Please respont on other arguments.--Brainbug666 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, other Wikipedia articles are irrelevant to this discussion. The previous discussion for Postorgasmic illness syndrome was several years ago, in which time our standards for medical articles have tightened, so if you were to nominate it for deletion now there would be a good chance of a different result. And please lay off the personal attacks. I am in this discussion as a Wikipedia editor working on improving this encyclopedia, not to promote any point of view, and I have had no dicussion with anyone outside this page about this topic. And if you were to read my contributions properly rather than treat this discussion as a battleground you would see that I have not only repeated what others have said. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, continual repetition doesn't make something true. The only source in an academic journal that mentions Post-Finasteride Syndrome (as opposed to the side effects of finasteride) is an abstract of a conference paper. Such abstracts are not peer-reviewed, and there is no evidence that the paper itself has been accepted for publication. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflist with the comment below) I have already provided a link above that shows that this is not part of the journal's peer-reviewed content, but a conference paper abstract. Here it is again. If you have access to the full text of that publication you can see that all that was published was the abstract, in a supplement to the main journal listing the 1,169 papers submitted to the 27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology with their abstracts. The journal European Urology is peer-reviewed journal, but European Urology Supplements, where this abstract was published, is not. It is really tiresome to have to deal with such filibustering comments that have already been refuted several times in this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If wikipedia is universally "just" in its procedures for allowing article content than this article would be proven valid simply by the mere existance of its counter-part on the German Wikipedia http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-finasteride_syndrome (BPPH) --24.227.159.131 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • yes, Phil Bridger, a continual repetition doesn´t make something true. And no, the only source is not only a academic journal(what is by the way not only a abstract) There are many valid sources that proves the existens. The is not only once source as you claim. Saying the other sources are baised can not be proven. The first source only shows that this term is used by science and MD´s. When it is used on a conference, this shows even more that this term is common, for MD´s who work in this field. The leading specialist like Dr. Irwin Goldstein who is the chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine. Used the term, even in public.

Prof. AM Traish Professor of Biochemistry at Boston University School of Medicine uses this term in public, he says: "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug. We don’t fully understand why, but it is as if something shuts off biologically, and stays that way." Prof. Dr. Arthur Burnett Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and president of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America have spoke about this topic, now tell what kind of authority do you need more? It was even a topic on the The World Meeting on Sexual Medicine. This term is used by the best doctors and most knowen in their field, for them it is a common term. This has been proven. Fot tousands of patients, members of the patients, MD´s, Media and even lawyers this is a common term. The attention even in the media, shows that this article deserves its place on wikipedia what is a encyclopedia. User Phil Bridger, you said you never heard of finasteride before, now you jump on a train and only pick up arguments and adding untrue statements. For me this sound more and more as a case of meatpuppetry. You even where the one, who aded the TEMPLATE for avoiding other´s people, who might have heard of this on other websites, to write here. The weird thing on that is, that you did that long before, all those IP´s started here. why is that so? do you have more information, than you show? What is now true? --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • redirect to Finasteride and lockitdown. it appears to be a widely enough spread fringe theory that it may be a search term but certainly currently insufficient actual medical evidence and coverage in reliable sources to merit a stand alone article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
yes user 24.227.159.131 What you say its true he is referring to this it is a peer reviewed medical/scientific research Journal. But without having the article he is only referring to the headline of the articles. Fact is it is published in a peer reviewed medical/scientific research Journal. Its so weird to call this article a abstract of a congress. Just klick on the other issues. Anyway the user Phil Bridger only repat what another user wrote (what was the first good and real argument against this entry and should realy be discussed). He does not have the article and says he nver have heard of finasteride before. But like I wrote, we discussed this also in german before and I realy think its importent to discuss such things (and not arguments like someone is baised or not) We came to the conclusion that the first source is in fact valid and this is togther with the other reasons. The fact why this article was keept on the german wiki site.

--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)--Brainbug666 (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already stated I do have access to the source in question via a library subscription. Stop lying about me. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that I too have access to the abstract you are citing for this syndrome via my university library and I have read it. It is not a strong enough source to support the existence of a syndrome named post-finasteride syndrome, per WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This entire discussion is surrounding the value of the term "Post Finasteride Syndrome" itself. There should be no argument as to if this is, is not a content fork as it clearly is not since the syndrome has been found in fomer users of Avodart, and Accutane. Also the term "Post Finasteride Syndrome" has been used and verified by medical doctors, and scientific institutions in studies published in peer-reviewed Journals such as the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and the Journal of Sexual Medicine. (BPPH)--24.227.159.131 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Phil. The 'conference abstract' is written by top University Professors in their respective feilds. Theres a good chance they will soon publish something thats meets your criteria in the future (this is not a 'fringe theory'). Will the chance to have a wiki entry on this subject be lost forever if it is deleted now?JacksonKnight (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, deletion is not permadelete. If significant coverage in reliable sources becomes available in the future, then an appropriate article can be created even if today it is deleted because there are no such sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User JacksonKnight, I think you are mixing something up. We fist discused this article where the term Post-Finasteride is used and if it is a source that fits in the WP:MEDRS. Anyway, this source was publ. in an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to urology. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right Mr. PB, we should probably get rid of the article because the term Post Finasteride Syndrome wasn't used in the study itself, only after the studies publication was the term used by the doctor's who performed the study themselves. So I guess your saying the syndrome doesn't exist? Perhaps you should give Boston University Medical School a call, or George Washington University Medical School.--24.227.159.131 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Phil Bridger says, identify which articles in those journals identify this as a syndrome.
Have a look here again: "However in literature a lot of case of persistent sexual adverse symptoms are signaled. The persistence of symptoms after discontinuation is named Post Finasteride Syndrome (PFS)."
Phil Bridger,please have a look for the definition of a syndrome. As you can see above there is an article 1 that even says, is named Post-Finasteride Syndrome. If you would have a look on the other sources you will see that they all describe the a comblex of symtoms, what is by defenition a syndrome. Anyway, Dr. AM Traish (Boston University) who wrote, with others this article. Says in public: "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug" by Dr. AM Traish
--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:13, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after edit conflict) The first of the sources that you linked is the conference paper abstract that I have already discussed ad nauseam above. And it doesn't matter what Dr. Traish might have said elsewhere - it is what he has published in peer-reviewed journals that counts. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
User Phil Bridger, what you call the whole time a "the conference paper abstract" what is is totaly wrong is publ. in a peer-reviewed journal.--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have explained that perfectly clearly above. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you would have a look at WP:SYN and WP:V you would see that you are barking up the wrong tree and not presenting anything that changes how we should be assessing this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrainBug, in which peer-reviewed journal did Traish publish the assertion, "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real. For a subset of these men, the damage persists—maybe forever—even after they go off the drug"? Did any other authors respond to that assertion in that or another journal? If you're quoting something he said in an interview or elsewhere, it has no weight here. None. None. Researchers frequently hyperbolise about the strength of their theories in a way they never could under peer review. That's why we rely on peer reviewed publications. See WP:MEDRS. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The essence of good Wikipedia-writing is mastery of sources. In medical article-writing that's mastery of WP:MEDRS. Until an author fully understands and applies this in their writing here, they will fail. You may write a very good article, but until it conforms to our sourcing guidelines, it's not a Wikipedia article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As others have said, there's no mention of this term in PubMed; I checked the NHS Clinical Knowledge Summaries database and there's nothing there either.[2] As other editors have mentioned, this term appears to be mainly promoted by an advocacy group and a handful of doctors; until it features in peer-reviewed journal articles I don't believe that it warrants an article. Pondle (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just thinking out loud. Are there good secondary or tertiary sources documenting the public controversy around the reported symptoms? That is, I don't think we can name a syndrome without WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing to support that, but if the rising concern, court cases, industry response, medicine's response, etc. are well-documented in reliable sources, I would welcome an article on those. It may, if a good secondary source says it, say that this or that specific person or group has used the term, "post-finasteride syndrome", but mustn't use the term itself until WP:MEDRS-compliant sources do. And such an article should not be called Post-finasteride syndrome.
We could create a "redirect" from "post-finasteride syndrome" to whatever the new title is; then readers searching Wikipedia for "post-finasteride syndrome" would be automatically taken to the new title where they would find an explanation of the term and the contexts in which it is used. The new title could explain who the PFS Foundation is, if the foundation has had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a mention.
If/when medicine adopts the term (when it is defined by scholarly or professional societies, when it appears in endocrinology textbooks, etc.) we can then have an article named Post-finasteride syndrome. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have no issue with having an article about the social activism surrounding the claimed long-term effects of this drug, so long as the article doesn't present this as an accepted medical condition and significant coverage can be found in independent reliable sources such as reputable newspapers - not just activist web sites. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

::comment if you do a google search on this term, you will get about 2.100.000 hits. As showen, more than once this term is used in many many cases, by patients and the leading medicals in their field and like I wrote before it was a the topic on the world meeting of sexual health. We should keep an eye on what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is an free encyclopedia. That shows common knowlege an common used terms and this is a very very big point the wikipedia WP:MEDRS count for every entry here. Nearly 80% of the entrys in wikipdia does not fits those WP:MEDRS. As you can see for many persons, drugs, bands, movies an even Pharmacompanies who are doing self promotion here. There are NON of the wiki WP:MEDRS. So but why are those terms on wikipedia, because they are common used terms. So if someone reads in a newspaper (there are many about) or see something in TV or google that term with 2.100.000 hits. This shows more than good that this term is knowen in puplic, If you klick on random article this is only a example what you will get. There are sorces that totaly fits in the wiki WP:MEDRSare written by experts in the relevant field. Those fitting articels do not use the term but describe a complex of symptoms and the authors of those articles call it in puplic Post-finasteride syndrome. The only argument against this, is that another souce, where the term is used in a publication. The only valid and good argument againt this article is what the user -Anthonyhcole said. The user Phil Bridger took this argument and did a deeper look inside and said this: „all that was published was the abstract, in a supplement to the main journal listing the 1,169 papers submitted to the 27th Annual Congress of the European Association of Urology with their abstracts. The journal European Urology is peer-reviewed journal, but European Urology Supplements, where this abstract was published, is not.” This is the only real argument against this article. But on the other hand we have many other. Fact it the term is used in science. Fact is the term is well established by the leading experts, patients media, google, newspapers, TV and so on. This term was used on the world meeting of sexual heath. The attention by the media is enormous. Even the attention in this discussion is enormous. This whole discussen started less than 2 hours the entey was done. With no valid arguments for deletion. Other arguments were that the writes like a ,Prof. Dr. AM Traish (Boston University) are baised and other useless and untenable statements. The next thing that came up was, that everbody who is not against this entry is a case of sockpuppety and than also meatpuppety. Everbody who was not against this were put on the list. There were also totlay useless comments by new users who came on with just an IP. But these were and im very sure patients or may be other MD´s who know this topic. Calling all a case of meat puppety is realy a jocke and also shows the world that something strange is going on here. I never believed that employee of the company wrok on this discussion and I never believed in some conspiracy theorys, but what is going on here is realy breath taking. The arguments that the authors are baised were useless, but the more I read here the more I see what kind of things are going on here, the more I believe that many of the users, who are writing here are more than baised. This is also the picture many of my colleagues get now after they read this whole discussion. What is going on here is not good. The most things I and other read here against this article are useless statements and claims. This does not show a good picture of wikipedia and I´m realy shorcked, what is going on here. Fortunately this discussion will be archived and the “world” can see what was going on here. People will get their owen picture. For what I can say, I realy get a very bad picture of the englsih wikipedia and for me the english wiki isn´t a credible source, when a entry will be deletet by such a single arguments. It only shows that wikipedia is a source driven by ..........

This goes back, to what is wikipedia and what is it not. So wikipedia is an free encyclopedia and it is not a medical encyclopedia, it has a medical part. It´s ridiculous that you can get 2.100.000 hits on google, many media and tv reports of this topic and term but that can not find it in wikipedia. I realy know, that it doesnt matter what, Dr. Abdulmaged M. Traish, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry at Boston University School of Medicine say in the Men’s Health (November 2011) "Our research definitely concludes that PFS is real" this only showes that this term is common by experts in the relevant field and spoken in pupic. This can not be discussed away and I would be happy to see how someone her give him a call and tell him that term does not exist. Even it was used by other writers as you can see in the first source. The guidelines are important to protect wikipedia and make it a credible source. But exactly this point here at the moment and the whole discussion doesn´t makes it to a credible source. The methods used here and the way a single entry is handelt are shocking. This doesnt help wikipedia. Even, by reading this whole discussion and what is going on here and interesst, time and work all user who wrote her this entry deserves his place on wiki. Another point is the deletion of the PFSfoundation. The arguments is that it is spam and self promotion. Were are talking about a non-profit-organisation. Simply the existens of this foundation, leaded by MD´s shows even ore that the PFS exists. Self promotion or whatever, wikipedia is a source of information for humans. As we can see there are more than 2.500 patients worldwide. What abut ethics? Whats going on here s realy a shame. --Brainbug666 (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Brainbug666 I think Phil Bridger and Anthonyhcole have made some useful and constructive comments about this wiki entry. It doesnt quite meet the WP:MEDRS just at the moment. Hopefully in the future it will, and that will prevent the creep of original research and allow better contributions from others. Your just burning your bridges with comments like this.JacksonKnight 16:01, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I did not mean to imply that Dr Traish is biased. My point was that, because there is little real review of or restraint on the claims a person may publish outside reviewed journals, scholarly textbooks or statements from scholarly or professional societies, we cannot accept assertions made outside those kinds of sources for the definition of a syndrome. This is just how Wikipedia works. We have to decide what claims we can and can't print, and for medicine we are guided by claims made in these types of sources.
If you or someone else does as I suggested above, you will have an article that in all likelihood will rise to the top of the Google results for "post-finasteride syndrome". If you or anyone else wants to take that on, contact me on my talk page and I'll guide you in the arcane ways of Wikipedia. I would welcome input from Dr Traish or anyone involved in academic or professional research on the topic, too. If you don't wish to take that on, feel free to pass on my offer of assistance to anyone you think may be interested. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Redirect to Finasteride#Adverse effects. The sexual side effects and aftereffects are well documented and are already described in the Finasteride article; the paragraph on sexual side effects could be expanded somewhat. However, the term "Post-finasteride syndrome" is not widely used, and there is nothing to suggest that this one side effect is so notable as to deserve its own article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anthinyhcole, this is what i said before. The only real and valid argument against this article was done by you, all other comments are more or less some ....less statements, with no proof, I think you know what I mean just look above. I love to discuss about real arguments but a statement like "the term is not widely used" is just a statement and nothing more. I said it is used by patients (there are about 2.500 if not more) Professor's and in science and media and was a big topic in the media. Those reports can be found. Now such a comment is useles. The user MelanieN even only talks about the sexual side effects. Even that shows, that she does not understand, what a syndrome is or may be even have not read the Post finasteride article. And this is exactly what I mean and is totaly useless in this discussion.

Well, as said by users here, the fact that this term is in use is proven. I changed the the first lines of the article that it now fits much better in the WP:MEDRSand just add this in the article

Those things seems to be possible and are here done in many many other article too. like it was done her this article in 2008 (I realy wonder why are all so mad abot this? It´s even better proven an gets much more attention in the media like many other things i the here. Why the shouters here dont have a look also on such things?

here are some other examples, Multi-infarct dementia Organic brain syndrome Caregiver syndrome Exploding head syndrome FACES syndrome2009 Crigler–Najjar syndromeAlien hand syndrome First arch syndromeand so on just have a look here, simply there are to many some articles are many years online. --Brainbug666 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brainbug, if the term really is "a big topic in the media", you sure can't prove it by Google News Archive - which finds only three hits, none of them from a major or reliable source. And if professors and scientists use it, you sure can't prove it by Google Scholar, which finds only one hit. Your assertion that the term is "widely used" is not supported by the available evidence. As for your repeated argument that there are other articles here about non-notable syndromes, please read WP:OTHERSTUFF, which is an example of WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Those other articles are not here for discussion. If they do get nominated for deletion, we can discuss them, on a case by case basis. Meanwhile we are discussing this subject, which does not have the significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources required for a Wikipedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN google news is not the only thing in the world. sorry is yahoo, than look here also ok for you? here are just a few and this are

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 many more you can find propeciahelp.com or just use google. Once again just a statement. but if you have any doubt or still belive you know it better, just pick one of these, Dr. Michael Irwig (George Washington University),Prof. Dr. AM Traish (Boston University), Prof. Dr. Arthur Burnett (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and president of the Sexual Medicine Society of North America), Dr. Irwin Goldstein (chief editor of the journal of sexual medicine), Dr. Eugene Shippen (author of the book "The Testosterone Syndrome"), Prof. Dr. M. Zitzmann (University Münster,Germany), Dr. A. Jacobs (neuroendocrinologist, New York), Dr. John Crisler, (Director, All Things Male - Center for Men's Health) give them a call and tell them what you thing. That it is not a used term and they dont know what they talking about, but please can you make a record of it? I would love to her what they said. I would love to quote you "Meanwhile we are discussing this subject" What you are doing is not discussing, you are just making some subjectiv statements.--Brainbug666 (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So let me summarize. On the one hand, we have a term, used by MD´s Prof. who are the leading experts in their field, tousands of patiens (the propeciahelp forum has about 2500 members) , media, lawyers and other people. We have a lot of other articles, that totaly fits in the wikipedia guidelines and are describeing a lot of the same symptoms, even not only the sexual symptomes. What is by defenition a Syndrom. The syndrom is named in a publication, This publication is publ. in a suppl. and was topic on a conference, where the term also was used. That also proves more that this term is in use.

This term was also used on the world meeting of sexual health. On the other hand we have delet discussion, that started less than two hours, after the entry was online, we have the arument that, the other valid articles are baised and taht alle the IP´s here are meatpuppets also like the Users who are for keeping this entry. The only good argument we have against this entry is, that is hte first source, where the term is used and publ. in an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to urology. But the suppl. is not. Ok Ok, for me this sounds very strange, cause here are tousands of articles that does not match the guidelines, whatever, we are discussing this entry. I changed the entry to the so-called "post-finasteride syndrome" so it fits in the MERDS. I think we should keep nin mind what wikipedia is and what it is not. It is first of all a free encyclopedia, that should give humans informations, a free encyclopedia is not made for encyclopedia, it is made for humans seeking for information. --Brainbug666 (talk) 22:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many editors have expressed their reasoning for why this article should not stay. The term "Post-finasteride syndrome" does not exist in any appropriate peer-reviewed scholarly sources and it simply doesn't matter how many people use this term (media, forum members, lawyers, etc.). Secondly, most of the sources supplied are single studies, small scale and generally weak. These would be fine to use as supplementary sources for other larger studies that might come out in the future, but they don't hold enough weight to be used on their own. It's already been suggested that you defer from using the existence or absence of other articles as an argument to keep this one. It holds no bearing on the outcome of this article whatsoever. Your change ("the so-called post-finasteride syndrome") isn't a way around MEDRS. Based on the sources supplied, the term can not be used at all. It has not been defined as a distinct condition or syndrome, so it can only be described as a phenomenon. Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed, and the content trimmed down drastically. At this point it would be a very short article about a finasteride-related phenomenon, and most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. To avoid all of that work, I would argue that the finasteride article have a subsection (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein) added, which may be able to use a few of these sources. If and when appropriate materials are available that define this as a syndrome and use the name (whatever it may be) then a separate article would be appropriate. DangerGrouse (talk) 01:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please have a look here WP:NOR again. Saying that many editors have expressed thier reasoning for why this article should not stay, doesnt matter. First, this is not a majority voting. Secondly, only the arguments count here. It doesnt matter, how many editos or users here say, the articles are baised or they don't hold enough weight. This are just subjectiv opinions. The user Dangergrouse, says, simply doesn't matter how many people use this term (media, forum members, lawyers, etc.) But the user misses simply one very important point, that this term is used by MD´s. Now, lets go back what wikipedia is and what it is not. For term that is knowen WP:IRS. There are many sources, that uses this term and this shows and proves that this term is in use by MD´s. And yes it does matter a lot, if it is changed to the so-called. Because, we are than talking just about a term and the existens is proven. Once again, please read, what wikipedia is and what it is not. The user says, Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed. What is untrue, it doesnt matter, how a user weight a source, it doesnt matter how many subjects where is a studie, all that counts here are that this is are Secondary sources/or peer-review. What nearly all sources are. Even this source, was publ. in a valid way. It realy doent matter If editors here say, everbody is baised or on this source was only one subject. This source counts. The user says, Secondly, most of the sources supplied are single studies, small scale and generally weak. It doesnt matter, how the user rates that. See also above. The user says also this, Should this article stay, many (almost all) sources would have to be removed, and the content trimmed down drastically. At this point it would be a very short article about a finasteride-related phenomenon, and most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. The whole argument is based on his owen statement. What also doesnt matter, as seen above. The user also says, most would agree that it should be merged back into finasteride. Well, this is very funny, because no one here cares to work on the Finasteride entry, there are many valid sources that are not inside the Finasteride entry, Finasteride is also a inhibitor of the 5AR3, I tryed to metion that a few times, but no one cares about that, I realy wonder, why it´s like that? Do the most people here only care about to remove a entry like the Post-finasteride syndrome? While they dont take care about the Finasteride article? Why, are all so mad about this entry, do not change the entry about Finasteride and all the other "syndromes" that you can find here on the english wiki. Why this entry was added to delete und 2 hours it was online? Many arguments came up, that all authors of the sources are baised and everbody, even users here were added the same way like the Ip´s that showed up to first a Sockpuppetry case than also to a meatpuppetry case. All these facts makes the english Wiki very doubtful. This is a picture I didnt had before, but the more I see, what is going on here the more I get this subjectiv picture of wikipedia and I belive many other get this too. This should not happen to wikipedia. The user wrote, To avoid all of that work, I would argue that the finasteride article have a subsection (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein) added, which may be able to use a few of these sources. This I like the most, why? Because the FDA and the Propecia leaflet says that. But they dont say it like, (possibly named "Persistence of symptoms" or something in that vein). What is going on here?--Brainbug666 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This HERE perfectly shows, what I mean.--Brainbug666 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont think that you have read WP:OR for full comprehension. You should start with "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. ... This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." And the content from subsection WP:SYN "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." You also need to always also keep in mind WP:NPOV particularly the section WP:UNDUE "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. ... In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you just need to check what OR is and what is a reliable source. I just pick up this source, Now it is published in a journal here, Now you can look and see that this Article has References and is cited. This changes a lot. Just have a look for other sources here on wikipedia. The article has a very neutral point of view, it is more than one time written, that this is a very rare "syndrome" But if it´s rare or not this also doesnt matter, there are about 2500 patients with a growing number. 2500 are on the one hand not much, but on the other when you take 2500 pat. and the MD´s also the media this term, and I am talking about the term, this has been showen more than often. The Term is knowen by the public also as you simply can look on google. Sadly here are things on the blacklist like the the examiner, I dont know why. but when you look here you can see that this is a term in use. Just google this, post finasteride syndrome examiner. Like i wrote above, the more I look around on the englsih wikipeda, the more I see that here things are going on, there are since years weird entrys, no one cares about, no one cares about the Finasteride entry, only avoid Informations. Keep in mind what Wikipedia is. Than you can see even in useless entry about a guy like Raymond Gilmartin or many other people and terms here this is realy ridiculous. I never thought that before and like I wrote above the more and more I look around here the more I see what its going on here. I´m am not against any Pharmacompany, cause the world needs it. But what makes me realy realy wonder the user TheRedPenOfDoom removed the short part about a the non-profit organisation the PFSfoundation, The argument was it is spam and selfpromotion. But when I have a look on the Merck entry, there is a Link even to their website the whole entry is a self Promotion, nearly all sources are based by owen informations. What is going on here? What happend to wikipedia? Alls whar I see and this is subjectiv, makes wikipedia not to a reliable source anymore.--Brainbug666 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your desire to care for people with problems is admirable. Your desire to use Wikipedia to accomplish that end is not. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and re the foundation Your desire to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes IS ABSOLUTELY not allowed. The foundation is not a reliable source for promotional information about itself and there is no third party coverage to indicate the foundation is in any way a representative view of the subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break one

[edit]
  • Redirect. No ambiguity that the term is being used in the popular press and should redirect to something. Every page on drugs has a side-effect section, and that on Finasteride says that side-effects abate on discontinuation of use. If that is disputed, a note in the finasteride article should be there, even if deemed unlikely or a minority view, simply to inform readers of what the medical consensus is, in case they are redirected. Agree that separation of a drug article from a (alleged or otherwise) side-effect article is a WP:FORK. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but this is my job this has something to do with ethics and not wiht making money. I´m working since a long time with sick people and I have seen a lot, but what happend to people who took this drug are the worst. No possible treatment, many looses job, wife, girlriends everthing that makes you feel alife, just read the symptoms. Those people has been healthy before and most of them are very young. They use this term is the biggest part of their lifes since many years like the doctors who try to treat them. Telling them that this term does not deserv to have a entry on wikipedia but a artikle like Raymond Gilmartin deserves it, is a slap in the face of people who are sick, a hit in the face, for the parents, whos beloved sons commited suicide by this, For them the term is there, everday! Also, the term is there for MD´s who try to help the people. Sometimes, it lookes like the history seems to repet. The patients has been warned in Europe only about the sexual sides, but not the people in the USA, Why is that so? So when the company had to change the label in Europe, why didnt they canged it in the USA too? Doesn´t the company want all it´s patients bewell? Now the same is going on here, or is anything wrong, what I wrote before? Doesn´t such articles like Raymond Gilmartin exists? We are talking now about a term and the term deserves more than many other entrys here his owen entry. Thanks --Brainbug666 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Get your own blogsite and stop hijacking Wikipedia. Comments not related to why policies support or do not support the retention of this article need to be taken elsewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User redpenofdoom, just look on the Merck entry, its the same, and the foundation is not selfpromotion (they dont earn money in their owen pocket). There are newspapers read here about the foundation (more than this, you can find more on the examiner.com) about the PFSfoundation, I never said that this foundation deserves its owen entry. But for me it seems to belong to this topic. So now please explain me, why a entry for MERCK it is allowed and not for this one? Why is that so?

User redpenofdoom, please explain me that--Brainbug666 (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • User redpenofdoom, I did not start this discussion. Am I not allowed to answer anymore, just because you say that? Please, explain me, why such things are totaly possible on other entrys and you delet this one? Saying this, Comments not related to why policies support or do not support the retention of this article need to be taken elsewhere. Doesnt answer my question. Why do you avoid to answer? Is asking something you something, why you did it, also not allowed here? I made a entry and now we have a discussion about this topic, that is hijacking Wikipedia? I did not start the discussion. What you are doing, says all to me. Please answer my questions, or does other MERDS count for this entry than for Merck? --Brainbug666 (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your questions have already been answered again and again above, so are becoming tendentious. Please read the answers, especially those that explain that this discussion is about this article, not others. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still no answer of my question and no, I did not ask a general question, I asked a question, that belongs to this topic. I asked you, why did you delet the part about the Foundation and why you are not deleting it in other entrys? Even, now, when you know it. Just claims, that it is spam and selfpromotion is a weird reason. This is just vandalism. There was also a vaild source about the Foundation as you can see here again. And you are the sheriff of wikipedia? Like I wrote many times before, I did not started this discussion and now you tell me I´m not allowed to answer? You are allowed to make the last statement and I have to shut up? No one forces you to read here, no one made you to the sheriff of wikipedia and no one forces you to answer. IF Wiki is so important for you please, than also work on the other entrys. You know which one now? Or is only this discussion and entry important for you?--Brainbug666 (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • User Redpenofdoom, you deletet a part in this article and I´m asking you, why you did that and this many times and no, you do not give response to that, can you please explain why you did that, there was a big article about the foundation and the so-called "post-finasterid syndrom" links are above. If you are not able to give an answer or simply dont want, please undo this change or it is just vandalism. This is still a discussion an not a forum, please keep this in mind.--Brainbug666 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't possibly grasp how there is an ongoing discussion about the existence of Post-Finasteride Syndrome. It is a term commonly used by the media, doctors and people who have been suffering for years, sometimes even over a decade. I'ver personally been suffering for 2 years and this term defines my every waking second ever, and you want to tell me this does not exist?--BarneytheBanker (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a discussion about the existence of "Post-Finasteride Syndrome". For intents and purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter if the condition actually exists or not, all that matters for this article is if the term "Post-Finasteride Syndrome" is recognized by acceptable scholarly sources as per wikipedia guidelines. At this juncture, it appears that sources do not meet requirements for it to be a named condition (or syndrome). Barring the outcome of this discussion, the article will either stay or be deleted until stronger sources become available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerGrouse (talk • contribs) 23:04, 10 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post-Finasteride_Syndrome&oldid=1268035660"