Talk:Candocuronium iodide
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 July 2025. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Candocuronium iodide.
|
Article being tagged for clear deficiencies
This article bears 17 of 18 inline citations from primary sources, and so only one secondary source to support the primacy its content and neutrality of its statements. Moreover, 14 of the 17 primary citations are to the work of the same pair of collaborators (IG Marshall and H Singh). These, with particular word choices suggest a scientific POV issue that needs to be addressed. Note, I am not questioning that this pharmacologically active substance is notable; I am simply stating that this cannot be seen as a neutral, encyclopedic article as it presently stands. Tags are therefore added. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am now questioning notability
Absence of secondary sources, lack of solid, broadly interesting medicinal chemistry content (no descriptions of changes to improve agent properties, only in-house numbers and no structures of series members, etc.), and broadly self-promotional tone make this a candidate for redaction (to remove uninformative and self-promotional language), and then merger if no substantial secondary sources and other improvements appear within 3 mos. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if this should just be nominated for deletion. I was not able to find any significant secondary coverage at all. Crmccull000 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
- I just spend the better part an hour looking for anything related to this that would be considered "significant secondary coverage" and have found a lack of anything. The most interesting thing I have found is that this particular drug was found to have the same performance as others, and even that was questionable given I could only find a single reference to it.
- I have no idea when this site was updated, but there is an utter lack of any information on this compound or similar ones that I could find.
- I look forward to seeing if anyone can find anything interesting. Alterious (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Given previous discussion, I've nominated for deletion. We'll see how that discussion goes. Crmccull000 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)