Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RIGVIR

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator(Non-admin closure). Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 12:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RIGVIR

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

This article has been discussed here. The only "scientific" source I've identified is doi:10.1134/S0026893312050032, which is available here, and while it is presented as a review, this source does not cite any of the phase III clinical trials it says happened. Thus, I don't see how it qualifies as a secondary source. The only papers it cites after mentioning the name "Rigvir" are from 1982 and 1971. Then we're referred to the Latvian Virotherapy Center website. ~~As medical articles use WP:MEDRS as a sourcing guideline, I don't see how this article meets WP:GNG.~~ Biosthmors (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: I've reduced this article to a sentence so that it follows WP:MEDRS, and if that is how it is written, then I'm OK with the article. Biosthmors (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note on article history: this material was contributed by single-purpose accounts AndrejsN (talk · contribs) and Riga virus (talk · contribs) on the page Virotherapy, and recently split to its own page. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notified AndrejsN of this page on March 31. The user account was set up in 2009 so the email account may be dead by now. User:Riga virus was not set up to accept emails. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email reply from AndrejsN, who contributed the first brief mentions of RIGVIR. His message does not help us to resolve this discussion, but for the record he is a cancer survivor, apparently not otherwise connected with the producers of RIGVIR. He says, "I received the medicine, I am doing very well… I am alive after five+ years of being diagnosed with melanoma." – Fayenatic London 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- While english-language sources are not a prerequisite, the fact that these references are all in Latvian makes judgements about the therapy difficult. Furthermore, I have spoken with someone who speaks Latvian who has cast some doubt on the interpretations made on WP about of some of the available resources. I would rather we deleted it until more people were able to interpret it usefully. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 10:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, here are the other citations provided to date.
- "Register of Human Medicines". State Agency of Medicines of Latvia. Retrieved 6 April 2013.
- Supplier's website Latvia Virotherapy Center, also http://www.virotherapy.eu
- "Vīruss var izārstēt vēzi (The virus can cure cancer)". TVNET (in Latvian). 30 August 2011. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
- "Aina Muceniece". Inventors of Latvia. Latvian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 30 March 2013.

– Fayenatic London 13:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources exist, yes, but what is reliable for what? I've reduced the article to what is clearly supported by a reliable medical source. Biosthmors (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to seeing it trimmed, but that seems excessive to me as a non-medical editor. I think would be the best outcome would be to move or redirect it to Naturally occuring oncolytic viruses or similar, where it could be combined with information on comparable products. – Fayenatic London 08:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the claims are unsourced. We can barely confirm that the Latvian medicines agency has approved it. That does not seem excessive to me, but stops short of what I would prefer to see, which is deletion. There is no significant evidence of notability. A single English-language review paper that mentions it is not enough, as WP:N requires multiple reliable sources. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 09:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is an echovirus, the dates of its development & approval seem to me to be adequately sourced and of encyclopedic interest. Latvian Academy of Sciences seems to be a RS. – Fayenatic London 09:06, 8 April 2013 (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.