This was triggered by the question:  https://health.stackexchange.com/q/641/165 

It has been raised that maybe it’s too broad because of the side effects bit. That may be. In a prior iteration it also asked for “best” medications and people felt that may be too subjective. I actually think that part was fine, but that’s not the issue I’m raising here. 

My (overlapping) concerns about this question*:  

1. It’s trivial. The OP could have found an answer with a google search. Or whatever “manual” you prefer. 

2. It’s not interesting to experts. I’m not an expert in the area. However, if I was answering it, I would be irritated that I needed to come up with references. I imagine this would be even more true for experts. 

2. It’s too broad (even excluding the side effects bit). A good answer would be too long for this format.  

3. The published literature is too good. [Are we going to do better than this?](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114844/)
4. It opens up a can of worms. Are we going to have a question for every disease, “how do I treat X?" 

On the other hand:

1. Not everybody thinks so.

2. How do you know?

3. A good summary is possible.

4. Meh, nobody reads that stuff.

5. Why not?

- Is this sort of thing OK here?

- If not, should we have a close reason: "This is a general reference question."?

*<sub> The purpose of this meta discussion is not to deal with this particular question. I think this is generalizable to any of the zillion possible questions that will likely arise asking similar general reference questions.</sub>