Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iodine (125I) CC49

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 Minretumomab (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 06:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iodine (125I) CC49[edit]

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

There are tens of thousand radioactively labeled substances in the scientific literature yet there are *very few* wikipedia pages devoted to a single, specific radiolabled substance -- in those cases they fulfill the criterion of notability. There are many thousands of radioiodine-labled substances in the literature but only one page describing a single example -- this page. But this single example does not warrant its own page. The subject of this page completely lacks notability: there is nothing distinguishing this particular substance from all other radioiodine-labled substances; there is nothing distinguishing this reagent from other biomedical reagents, particularly since this was tested and found to have no therapeutic value (Wikipedia cannot be a compendium of every failed substance tested); the work described is over a decade old and does not appear to have led to other significant findings or served as the foundation of other significant finding; and the unlabeled compound (CC49) itself is also lacking in notability such that there is no page for CC49. If there was a CC49 page, then this subject could be moved to that page. But there is a similar lack of notability for CC49 and there no page for that, thus this page about radioiodinated-CC49 should be removed from Wikipedia. Lapabc (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 November 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ (from creator). At least one independent source in article (Biotherapy, a book). 33 search results on PubMed, so it's used at least experimentally. It's also for sale, although I don't know whether / how frequently it is used in practice. It has got an ATC code (V09IX03 (WHO)), so at the very least the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point. Also, it's not true that this is a failed substance: while it failed as a therapy, it seems to work as a diagnostic agent.

Regarding the "very few" radiolabelled substances covered on WP: See ATC code V09 and ATC code V10 for counterexamples (including quite a few radioiodine compounds). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge into Minretumomab. Per this article in Nature, table 2, CC49 (uniodinated) = minretumomab. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The above comment contains incorrect information. Some of the comment involves irrelevant information and some disputed information:

(1.) The subject of this WP page, [125-I]-CC49, is not for sale. The product cited is for a different composition, a generic monoclonal antibody used for immunostaining. There are many thousands of antibodies for sale. The existence of a secondarily related commercial product is not evidence of this item's notability(Wikipedia:Notability). Instead, the lack of a commercial product of this item supports the conclusion of non-notability.

(2) The references on PubMed do not indicate "it's used at least experimentally." The newest reference is over 8 years old indicating it was of interest once upon a time ago. Because there are millions of references on PubMed, the existence of a few reference by itself cannot evidence of notability. In this case, the lack of recent publications actually supports the conclusion of non-notability.

(2a) In fact, there are many more references in PubMed to a closely related [131-I]-CC49 than there are [125-I]-CC49, yet there is no WP page on [131-I]-CC49 and nor should there be. The existence of this old literature is indicative of a dead end. And, similar to the point about old citations on PubMed not by itself being evidence of notability, the existence of a dead end line of research is not evidence of notability either -- there are too many millions of dead ends to be cataloged in Wikipedia, unless a dead end is *particularly* notable. Nothing currently indicates notability for any radioiodinated version of this antibody, nor for the specific [125-I] version of this antibody in the WP page in question.

(3) The commenter cites inclusion on the WHO ATC list, stating "the WHO took it seriously as a diagnostic agent at some point." Perhaps the commenter does not know how the system works but the existence of a composition on that list does not mean it was evaluated or validated in any scientific or biomedical way. To the contrary, the organizers of the ATC/DDD database are not allowed to make a judgement about scientific or medical utility, rather their role is limited to insuring the required paperwork is in order and that it contains the requisite data. Inclusion on the list is driven solely by those who bother to make the effort to submit documentation. These are entities that typically have a vested interest (Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest), e.g., a pharmaceutical company, although some entities may be impartial academics. The existence of a composition on the ATC/DD list by itself is not evidence of notability.

(4) The commenter's conclusion that "it seems to work as a diagnostic agent" is disputable. There are no [125-I]-CC49 commercial medical diagnostic kits in existence for any medical condition. There are no commercial medical diagnostic kits of the different, unlabeled CC49 antibody for any medical condition. There is no evidence of medical pathology laboratory procedures that currently involve the use of this antibody for diagnosis of any medical condition. It is true that a different, unlabeled antibody is for sale and that antibody can be used for research purposes. But that is not the same thing as being a diagnostic agent.

(5) The commenter is incorrect about "counterexamples" that indicate "quite a few radioiodine compounds." Ironically, the citations support the opposite, original critique that there are very few. Again, there are tens of thousands of radiolabled compositions, and thousands of examples of radiolabled antibodies. Yet the two citations the commenter provides only lists a few dozen. This is evidence of "few," not "many." Those lists contain many irrelevant radioistopes and irrelevant molecules that are labeled. As to the more restricted case of radioiodine, the commenter's list includes only ~9, most of them not [125-I]-labeled but are small molecules or non-relevant proteins labeled with different radioiodine isotopes -- only one is an antibody and it's [131-I]-labeled. Again, out of tens of thousands of RADIOLABLED compositions and out of many thousands of RADIOIODINATED compostions, the commenter's lists are evidence of very few, not many. This, in fact, supports the conclusion of non-notability.Lapabc (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen that I changed from Keep to Merge? For ¹²⁵I-CC49 to be merged into Minretumomab, it does not have to be notable in itself. Apart,

(1)+(4) Of course the radioiodinated compound is not for sale. Radiolabelling is usually done immediately before usage. That said, you may be right that it isn't (currently) used as a diagnostic agent.

(2) Notability is not temporary: WP:NTEMP. Also, notability is about coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter how many other substances are covered on PubMed.

(3) I know how ATC works. Again, this is about coverage ("attention") in reliable sources such as WHO's, not about whether it is of scientific or medical utility.

(5) I was refuting your claim about there being "a single example" of a radioiodinated compound. In this context, "quite a few" was meant to mean "more than one". Sorry for not being precise. And again, the number of substances not covered on Wikipedia does not establish non-notability (WP:OTHERSTUFF).

--ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minretumomab (= CC49). - HyperGaruda (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 01:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 20:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Minretumomab seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 02:10, 20 December 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.