Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadol

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 Paracetamol brand names. L Faraone 01:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Panadol[edit]

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

fails NOTABILITY, lack of independent sources so fails WP:Golden Rule, WP:NOTDIRECTORY Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An incredibly common brand of paracetamol in many countries. Why on earth would we want to delete it? Makes no sense whatsoever. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What lack of independent sources? How does this and this fail the golden rule/WP:GNG? This is clearly a significant product, have you accidentally nominated the incorrect article?Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is nothing notable about this particular brand; the article says nothing notable about it - it just provides a bunch of indiscriminate detail. Contrast with Tylenol. It is just a directory listing.Jytdog (talk) 15:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, it is a brand that sells 18 billion tablets annually in 85 different countries. A quick search finds dozens of examples of significant coverage in reliable sources. I still fail to see how this fails WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:15, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly is notable about the brand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs) 15:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:That it covered significantly in reliable sources? For example it has 91% of the pain reliever market share in Sri Lanka,[1] with similar shares in other non-western countries. Can you tell me what specific deletion criteria that this article fails? Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

you are providing marketing material from http://www.superbrands.com/ as a source? this is exactly the point. What independent sources are there they show there is anything notable about this brand? The article about Tylenol makes sense - the cyanide poisonings happened which led to lots of coverage of the brand in independent sources, as well as damage to the brand's reputation, and how J&J managed it. Anyway, your vote to "keep" is clear. Jytdog (talk) 15:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog: I hope it is clear, I still fail to see how this fails WP:GNG. If you dislike the superbrand report, (which actually cites HouseholdPanel – LMRB which is independent) there are many, many others. For example the product has the largest market share of any pain reliever in Australia[2] at 28%. They've also come under pressure for misleading marketing claims[3], studies that they aren't better than placebo and have recently faced some controversial recall of their own. This should prove beyond any reasonable doubt that significant coverage in independent sources exists for Panadol. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

most of your sources there are about the active ingredient, not the brand. there is no doubt that the active ingredient, Paracetamol, is notable - it absolutely is; people seem to get easily confused about that. and a blip of a recall over a wrong label is not notable. i do not see how this brand is notable. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:Please explain specifically how this article fails any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Only the times article could possibly be construed to be about the active ingredient rather than the brand. All the remaining sources are independent and all significantly discuss the brand. See WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the conversation.com article is not about panadol - it is about analgesics in general. (this is what i mean about people being confused) all you have is a pile of trivia about a product.Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jytdog:"Please explain specifically how this article fails any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines." WP:GNG states: "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 or list." Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:06, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The brand is documented in detail in sources such as the BMA Concise Guide to Medicine and Drugs and Medicines: The Comprehensive Guide. The worst case would be merger with a page such as paracetamol but, as the various formulations include other active ingredients, it seems reasonable to keep this separate to make this clear. Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support a redirect to paracetamol. the various formulations are just triva that violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Weak keep The key question is whether Panadol is independently notable from paracetamol. From a medical standpoint no. The activity of Panadol is no different from generic paracetamol. From a business standpoint and given the large global sales of Panadol, it very well may be. Is there any thing unique and notable about the marketing of Panadol (for example Panadol pharmaceutical markeing)? Are there any controversies specifically about Panadol? Boghog (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: Panadol is the 2nd largest non-narcotic analgesics in the world by market share, with 21% of the global market share.[4] The three recent recalls of panadol (late 2013, mid 2014, and last month) was also widely covered by a large number of news sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major recalls makes it independently notable. Also marketing campaign. Needs to be added to article. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the sources I just added to the article, as well as coverage in this book, establishes that this brand meets WP:GNG. Everymorning talk 17:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In most cases, I would suggest an article about a specific brand for a drug should be merged with the article for that drug. That may be best here. However, Panadol seems to me one of the few cases where the brand is significant in itself, as per Winner 42. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my view all that Winner42 has done is say that a lot of it gets sold and not provided anything beyond trivia. Wikipedia is not a directory nor an indiscriminate collection of facts. All the article is, is a listing of countries where it is sold and various formulations, with a little bit of history. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And that history is covered in Paracetamol. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Close It appears this AfD was not properly thought out before it was posted. I am not seeing much value in continuing the discussion. And Adoil Descended (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The existence of independent sources shows that an article with this name is feasible. The question that should also be asked is "Is it desirable?". I have seen no argument above that indicates why the few sources unique to Panadol should not be discussed in the article for the generic drug, Paracetamol. Indeed, Panadol is already mentioned in the Paracetamol article five times, in the infobox, the lead and the history section, as well as being prominently featured in an image. Isn't that enough advertisement for a commercial brand name already? Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related_articles #Article titles gives the following guidance for the article title: Drugs—The International Nonproprietary Name (INN). The INN for Panadol is Paracetamol and that is how our MOS tells us it should be titled. I should add that the article List of paracetamol brand names also already exists and has 107 entries to date. How many of these deserve entries according to the arguments espoused above? We're being asked to retain an article on the brand name of the second largest selling non-narcotic analgesic - so why not an article on the third-best seller, or the fourth? at what point do we draw the line? as I'm sure someone can find sources for all of them. Without a good reason for an exception to our article-naming guideline, this topic should exist solely within the existing Paracetamol article. --RexxS (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Kim Kardashian's butt Merge to ~~Paracetamol~~ and redirect. As explained by RexxS, we don't need hundreds of articles on trade names, and we have a guideline to use INN. Tylenol is notable for an extreme incident; we don't have articles on vioxx, prozac, synthroid, etc. And per Boghog's comment that the recall made it notable, we don't have a vioxx article in spite of the laypress using vioxx rather than Rofecoxib when that scandal happened. There is nothing in this article that can't be accommodated at paracetamol. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paracetamol and merge content to Paracetamol brand names (as clarified by Hrothulf). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. It is a disservice to the reader to fragment our drug information across different articles about each brand name. WP:MEDMOS recommends using the INN for articles about drugs. Also, Kim Kardashian's butt. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding, relevant to the discussion below: I support the recent move of Tylenol to Tylenol (brand) because there is plenty of noteworthy stuff to say about that brand that would overwhelm Paracetamol if we tried to include it all in Paracetamol. Anything noteworthy about Panadol can be (and is) easily included in Paracetamol and List of paracetamol brand names, so, at least unless more noteworthy stuff comes to light or until the brand is involved in a lot more noteworthy events, I oppose the creation of Panadol (brand). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - a separate article under one brand name is not needed. If it were found that panadol differed significantly from paracetamol then it would warrant a separate article. Right now it just seems like promotion for GlaxoSmithKline. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have been seeing a lot of people trying to create spam articles based on brand names of medications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect We do not need a seperate article for each brand name of acetaminophen. When someone types in a brandname they are looking for information about the medication. They are not looking for a discussion of the brand. Thus the term panadol should redirect to paracetamol. What we need is a series of articles on Brandnames of X were all the brand names of X are discussed in detail for those who care. These brandnames would be linked from society and culture section. And guess what we have an article called List of paracetamol brand names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay IMO we should move Panadol to Panadol (brand) and then redirect Panadol to paracetamol. This is most inline with WP:MEDMOS and WP:PHARMMOS. The brand article is a subarticle of the paracetamol article which can than link to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the page on Tylenol has just recently been moved to Tylenol (brand) and Tylenol redirected to paracetamol. (Seems like a good idea to me and one that would work for Panadol too if it isn't deleted or merged.) Deli nk (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced we need Panadol (brand) either, because the argument still holds that information that is distinct about this one specific brand name can be accomodated at List of paracetamol brand names or Brand names of paracetamol.

We shouldn't set up a situation where we might end up with duplicate information across hundreds of articles.

Also, I'm pinging the editors who weighed in here before the pharmacy and medicine guidelines were pointed out: @Necrothesp: @Winner 42: @Andrew Davidson: @And Adoil Descended:.

@Bondegezou: @Boghog: and @Everymorning: indicated familiartity with the Medicine and Pharmacy guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I also weighed in on business guidelines which seems to have been completely lost. There does not need to be any duplication of information. Paracetamol is focused on the pharmacological activity of the drug, Panadol on the business aspects. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this more I think merge to Paracetamol brand names is best. I am not seeing enough yet for a stand alone article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted above, is the most sensible course of action. I don't see that there is enough notable information about the brand itself to warrant a separate article. A vast majority of people who come to Wikipedia for information about Panadol will almost certainly be looking for information about the drug (the active ingredient) rather than anything particular to the branded product. Deli nk (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given how significant and widespread the brand is I still maintain that a separate article is completely acceptable and indeed desirable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I concur with Necrothesp and Boghog the brand is so widespread and significant that a separate article on it is relevant. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yep, we know. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge Doc James' solution is a good one. Redirect Panadol to paracetamol and create Panadol (brand) to contain content specific to the product. This is a good general approach - certainly there are quite a few drugs whose advertising or business aspects are notable independent of the compound itself. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paracetamol and merge content to Paracetamol brand names. Antonyhcole and Doc James have it exactly right. The brand names article is short, and will benefit from the couple of paragraphs currently at Panadol. Certainly Panadol is a marketing success and satisfies the general notability guidelines, but there is still a strong case for a merge: a reader can find all the drug information in one place, (also easy for experienced pharma editors to watch) and there can still be a supporting article about the leading brand names and their marketing success (or otherwise). Some of these brands proved their significance by outselling generics for decades after patents expire, but it is easier to read about all these in one place, rather than in individual articles about each brand. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Sandy and James, ensuring hat notes are in place to handle wp:EASTEREGG issues. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should just link to these article in the lead of the paracetamol article IMO such as we do with Tylenol (brand) right now. Adding hatenotes IMO is IMO undue weight. These are subpages of paracetamol rather than article on par with paracetamol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To the arguments above about Panadol being a widely used drug, here are, as an example, the top prescribed medications in the US according to WebMD.

This is only the top 10 in the US; if we extend that to the top 100,[5] and then worldwide, we end up with a lot of duplication of information. Every one of them is a redirect to the generic, and that is desirable and per guideline, to avoid duplication of information. Being widely used does not indicate a reason to create separate articles on every trade name; any information that needs to be include a specific brand name can be included in the generic article. Trade name articles for drugs should be the exception (as in the Tylenol (brand) case per the cyanide poisonings) rather than the rule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2015 (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.