515:: Another concern is that even though consensus might keep this one, thus possibly placating the Nom, someone else might take issue later and it starts all over. Something like 15 pages with many listings on each page and someone may wonder about the same 3 or 4 sources. At least the source I added shows the sub-pages are listed. If a template makes it easier I am for it because I don't think the mentioned refs 1 and 2 does it. --
576:
That depends on what this discussion is actually about, of which I'm not really sure any more. Are we still talking about (a) no encyclopedic content, and/or (b) secondary sources establishing notability, and/or (c) inline citations for the individual sections or even the individual list items?
362:
doesn't say "Knowledge (XXG) is not a mirror of published indices", I think pages like this are outside the scope of our project. As far as a navigational aid, the category system is indeed a directory and an integral part of WP; I'd support (and be happy to help with) turning these lists into
236:
a directly or almanac; additionally in my experience these lists are often out of date and therefore have the potential to be incorrect and, because they are just reposts of the primary source, contribute to errors if they are used. Like other sources, interested editors can go directly to the
441:
stated that "You don't need an independent source or a secondary source ... when the non-independent primary source is authoritative for the specific content in question." However, if we really need to reference the items to the individual sub-pages on the WHO site, I could do this in a more
493:
I didn't find any but it would seem there would be some. The "group or set" source is what I was looking for. I haven't been involved with any of these but as a set of navigational aid lists I can see a reason for keeping. Of course this would be more important as long as
544:– so I think there is no question about notability of the topic. But these sources are ill suited for inline citations, as each ATC code is on a different page, and they don't address the nominator's concern that we are just reproducing the originals from
284:. Most entries have articles themselves and the inclusion criteria derive from a WHO classification scheme, surely a notable and reliable source. As a navigation article placing these drugs in perspective, it looks fine to me. Claiming a
201:
474:
Has anyone actually tried looking for sources? Doesn't this seem like the kind of subject that an intro-to-pharma textbooks ought to at least mention (or, indeed, organize its entire contents around)?
312:
Not much to add to Mark's reasoning except that the ATC lists are definitely not out of date as I've been taking care of them. (I think they may have fewer typos than the lists on the WHO site.) --
232:
These lists appear to just be reposts of the original ATC lists. There is no encyclopedic coverage of the topics within them. I think the whole set should be deleted because we are
541:
532:: Apart from refs 1 (NIH) and 2 (German Ministry of Health), which have short explanations of the ATC code system, there's quite a number of sites that use ATC codes – e.g. the
240:
I am proposing a single instance of the list first and, if there is consensus, the result of the set can be nominated. I look forward to hearing the opinion of other editors.
433:
by independent reliable sources", which is satisfied by refs 1 and 2. This is different from inline refs for the individual list items. The latter issue was discussed at
257:
154:
195:
86:
101:
292:; the category system is a directory, too, and an integral part of WP. Fear of a maintenance burden is never a good reason for deletion. Hence, keep. --
351:
we can have lists on whatever we find encyclopedic and useful, which makes list AfDs always a bit weird. This list is one of ~100 similar pages in
161:
408:
source, which is better than none, but better sourcing is needed. I am on the fence because I can see importance as a "navigation aid"--
456:
Whether a primary source adequately verifies a specific claim is a different question from whether we should have this page at all.
81:
74:
17:
127:
122:
131:
348:
95:
91:
216:
114:
393:
183:
628:
40:
364:
177:
480:
461:
173:
624:
611:
586:
571:
557:
524:
507:
484:
465:
451:
417:
376:
339:
321:
304:
299:
269:
249:
56:
36:
498:(or someone) was around to update. Otherwise they would become outdated and better as categories. --
582:
553:
447:
384:: If we are going to use WP:LISTN, concerning "reliable sources" as a rationale to keep, please note
317:
405:
223:
209:
372:
352:
334:
265:
245:
426:
281:
288:
directory isn't relevant for well-sourced navigation article with clear inclusion criteria per
476:
457:
438:
434:
118:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
623:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
607:
567:
520:
503:
413:
295:
359:
329:
eep. Useful list. Important that this content is maintained if there are new drug classes.
289:
285:
233:
578:
549:
495:
443:
386:
One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed by
313:
189:
398:
The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles,
368:
330:
261:
241:
358:. I agree that these aren't encyclopedic, and are just a mirror of an index. While
110:
62:
53:
148:
603:
563:
516:
499:
409:
533:
537:
356:
619:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
429:
states that notability is established "if has been discussed
349:
Knowledge (XXG):Stand-alone_lists#Appropriate_topics_for_lists
548:
with no encyclopedic content on the ATC pages themselves. --
280:
This looks like a reasonable list-class article satisfying
545:
237:
primary source, rather than the copy/pasted list here.
144:
140:
136:
208:
602:, reasonable encyclopaedic topic, properly sourced.
222:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
631:). No further edits should be made to this page.
256:Note: This discussion has been included in the
402:, and sections of articles—without exception...
540:, Germany's Rote Liste (no open access), the
258:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
102:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
255:
397:
385:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
562:I agree, so possible solution? --
442:standardised way with a template. --
24:
365:Category:Drugs with ATC code A07
87:Introduction to deletion process
355:setup to mirror the content at
425:: The sentence you quote from
1:
388:independent reliable sources
77:(AfD)? Read these primers!
648:
612:10:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
587:07:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
572:20:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
558:19:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
525:18:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
508:18:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
485:16:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
466:16:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
452:15:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
418:12:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
363:categories instead (e.g.
57:15:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
621:Please do not modify it.
377:22:15, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
340:20:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
322:16:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
305:17:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
270:07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
250:07:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
546:https://www.whocc.no/
75:Articles for deletion
534:UK drug information
394:WP:Reliable sources
353:Category:ATC codes
439:User:WhatamIdoing
435:Talk:ATC code V10
431:as a group or set
337:
272:
92:Guide to deletion
82:How to contribute
639:
335:
303:
227:
226:
212:
164:
152:
134:
72:
34:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
638:
637:
636:
635:
629:deletion review
293:
169:
160:
125:
109:
106:
69:
66:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
645:
643:
634:
633:
615:
614:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
527:
510:
488:
487:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
404:. I added one
379:
342:
324:
307:
274:
273:
230:
229:
166:
105:
104:
99:
89:
84:
67:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
644:
632:
630:
626:
622:
617:
616:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
597:
588:
584:
580:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
542:Austria Codex
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
511:
509:
505:
501:
497:
492:
491:
490:
489:
486:
482:
478:
473:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
453:
449:
445:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
401:
395:
391:
389:
383:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
357:
354:
350:
347:per nom. Per
346:
343:
341:
338:
332:
328:
325:
323:
319:
315:
311:
308:
306:
301:
297:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
247:
243:
238:
235:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:Find sources:
167:
163:
159:
156:
150:
146:
142:
138:
133:
129:
124:
120:
116:
112:
108:
107:
103:
100:
97:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
79:
78:
76:
71:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
620:
618:
599:
529:
512:
477:WhatamIdoing
458:WhatamIdoing
430:
422:
399:
387:
381:
344:
326:
309:
277:
239:
231:
219:
213:
205:
198:
192:
186:
180:
170:
157:
111:ATC code A07
68:
63:ATC code A07
49:
47:
31:
28:
296:Mark viking
196:free images
579:ἀνυπόδητος
550:ἀνυπόδητος
530:Re sources
496:Anypodetos
444:ἀνυπόδητος
314:ἀνυπόδητος
625:talk page
37:talk page
627:or in a
538:Drugbank
437:, where
427:WP:LISTN
382:Comments
369:Ajpolino
282:WP:LISTN
262:Tom (LT)
242:Tom (LT)
155:View log
96:glossary
39:or in a
406:primary
396:states
202:WP refs
190:scholar
128:protect
123:history
73:New to
54:Spartaz
604:Stifle
564:Otr500
517:Otr500
500:Otr500
410:Otr500
360:WP:NOT
345:Delete
290:WP:CLN
286:WP:NOT
234:WP:NOT
174:Google
132:delete
400:lists
217:JSTOR
178:books
162:Stats
149:views
141:watch
137:links
16:<
608:talk
600:Keep
583:talk
568:talk
554:talk
521:talk
513:Note
504:talk
481:talk
462:talk
448:talk
423:Note
414:talk
373:talk
336:T@lk
318:talk
310:Keep
300:Talk
298:}} {
294:{{u|
278:Keep
266:talk
246:talk
210:FENS
184:news
145:logs
119:talk
115:edit
50:keep
390:...
367:).
331:JFW
224:TWL
153:– (
610:)
585:)
577:--
570:)
556:)
536:,
523:)
506:)
483:)
464:)
450:)
416:)
392:.
375:)
333:|
320:)
268:)
260:.
248:)
204:)
147:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
121:|
117:|
52:.
606:(
581:(
566:(
552:(
519:(
502:(
479:(
460:(
446:(
412:(
371:(
327:K
316:(
302:}
264:(
244:(
228:)
220:·
214:·
206:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
181:·
176:(
168:(
165:)
158:·
151:)
113:(
98:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.