Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucatumumab

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. Sandstein 19:33, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lucatumumab

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

This drug candidate was found not to be efficacious and never made it past Phase I clinical trials. Natureium (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep ~~Keep~~ – Regardless of the efficacy or usefulness of the drug, this topic nevertheless meets WP:GNG, albeit on a possibly weaker level, because it has received enough independent coverage to qualify for an article. See some source examples below. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

~~British Journal of Haematology (may be a primary source, unsure after researching)~~
Cardiovascular Week
Side Effects of Drugs Annual
Blood Journal
Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice
Cancer Immunology: Bench to Bedside Immunotherapy of Cancers
Targeted Therapy in Translational Cancer Research (subscription required) (cannot access entire work to see depth of coverage)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence of actually significant secondary coverage emerges. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

of the refs brought above:

- British Journal of Haematology not "maybe" primary. Absolutely primary.
- Cardiovascular Week - this is an example of incompetent churnalism churning some low quality hyping of a primary source. oy.
- Side Effects of Drugs Annual
- Blood Journal - this is an abstract from the primary source mentioned above, essentially a directory listing in a book summarizing all clinical research done in 2012. not useful for N.
- Immunotherapy in Transplantation: Principles and Practice. Bit better. A four sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
- Cancer Immunology: Bench to Bedside Immunotherapy of Cancers - As above, now a five sentence paragraph in a book. Still pretty passing mention-y.
- Targeted Therapy in Translational Cancer Research (subscription required) - as with the 3rd ref above, just summarizes the Phase I trial.

A search on pubmed for reviews finds 4 refs in English. PMID 25249370 is like the OKish refs above, and just summarizes the Phase I paper. PMID 24555495 however has extensive discussion of the published science around this mAb as of its date (it was received in Sept 2013). PMID 19362983 is from 2009 and is very brief. It discusses 2 small Phase I trials under the old development name HCD-122. PMID 18336199 is too old to be relevant.

I did what I could to complete the story with the best refs I could find (which were not great) in these diffs.

I am on the fence about whether this should be kept or deleted. I won't moan either way, but this is not a slam-dunk "keep" by any means. It is borderline at best. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I modified my !vote above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:37, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The original bjh article has been cited over 74 times in Google Scholar.Another paper on the subject in Blood [1] has been cited 140 times. A third in Leukemia & [2], 84 times. That's several hundred citations to the substances. We normally keep substances with even a few. DGG ( talk ) 11:07, 7 March 2017 (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.