Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Penny Budoff

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Budoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable researcher who fails WP:GNG. only indication of notability is a paid obituary in The New York Times. Google reveals very little. She is cited several times on various newspapers, but nothing specifically about her. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Penny Wise Budoff of the Stony Brook medical school in New York found that mMefenamic acid (Postel) produced significant relief from pain, nausea, and diarrhea in 44 women with debilitating menstrual cramps (spasmodic dysmenorrhea). ...
For years the standard treatment for women with severe menstrual problems has been to put them on oral contraceptives. Dr. Budoff questioned the necessity for taking "21 days of birth control pills to get 24 hours of relief from pain." Reasoning She reasoned that a drug which inhibits prostaglandin synthesis or interferes with the prostaglandin receptors would stop the cramps,. Dr. Budoff approached Warner Lambert with a proposal to test Ponstel (already marketed for treating arthritis pain), which was already on the market for treating arthritis pain, against menstrual cramps. ... The pilot study results were impressive enough that the company finally funded a larger clinical study.

JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch on the copyvio! I removed the major copyvio you flagged, together with some anyway-less-notable material that looked to be copied from encyclopedia.com, and requested revdel. I think I got it all -- in the article history, the problematic material seems to have been introduced by users Gidget92 and Femmelady. Take a look. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I came to the same conclusion regarding provenance and left warnings on their talk pages, although neither has edited since the date the copyvios were introduced. JoelleJay (talk) 21:55, 29 November 2021 (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.