Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duvortuxizumab

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duvortuxizumab

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

Not notable, development abandoned in phase I. Natureium (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 02:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Natureium (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~, Fails WP:PHARM. Non-notable. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepDelete~~, provisionally - (I'm open to persuasion). Um, I can see that failing in a phase I trial makes a drug useless as a medicine but it doesn't automatically mean it's not notable. What does "Fails WP:PHARM" mean? That page is WikiProject Pharmacology and it doesn't say anything about notability, unless you count the link to MEDRS which isn't really on that topic either. That said, there are reliable sources on this drug, such as Potent antitumor activity of duvortuxizumab, a CD19 x CD3 DART® molecule, in lymphoma models (Cancer Research, July 2017), certainly a RS. It seems to me that the question hinges on whether the fact that this promising drug proved disappointing is notable, or whether the same happened to thousands of similar drugs in its class. I suspect that "chimeric/humanized monoclonal antibody designed for the treatment of B-cell malignancies" are as yet rather few in number, and that this early one to be trialled is in fact notable as a pioneer. At the very least, it's non-notability is non-obvious and needs justification beyond anything that has been written here so far. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where it's written that experimental drugs are notable at phase II, but it's a guideline we've followed at WP:PHARM for a long time. The link you provided is a link to an abstract presented at a conference. Conference abstracts are not peer-reviewed and are not reliable sources, much less MEDRS. If something comes of the research, the authors of the abstract will publish a peer-reviewed paper (which would still not be MEDRS, because it's a primary source). Additionally, ADIS reports that development was discontinued, so it's not like we are just waiting around for it to enter phase II. Natureium (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unwritten rules, eh. Well, if common practice is to bin discontinued phase I drugs no matter how pioneering then we should delete. I guess the notable topic is the use of monoclonal antibodies for cancer, where the fact that a phase I trial occurred and failed (for which we obviously wouldn't need a peer-reviewed source) would be relevant: but that's not this article. Tyranitar Man - there's an update. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something novel about this drug specifically, that could probably be mentioned in an article somewhere, but the use of monoclonal antibodies for cancer isn't exactly groundbreaking. There are 77 articles in Category:Monoclonal antibodies for tumors. Natureium (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chiswick Chap. --Tyranitar Man (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Both of his votes are crossed out. Natureium (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 23 January 2018 (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.