Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ALD518

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 keep. The potential of expanding and renaming this article to be about Alder Biopharmaceuticals has support, this should be discussed on the article talk page. The notability of this individual therapeutic is debatable, but there's no consensus for deletion. Fences&Windows 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALD518[edit]

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

Some monoclonal antibody agent that is in its early stages of testing. May never become approved for any indication, unlikely to be informative. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a NN drug, but don't salt, as it may become notable after testing. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~ Move & rewrite as suggested by WhatamIdoing, below no PubMed references as yet. I point out with the current regulations to register trials in advance (to prevent the biased non-reporting of those that do not give positive results) there will be the sort of references this article has for all of them, notable and not notable. Let the NIH run the directory. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since ~~has been reported in UK National press and~~ many RA suffers are likely to be looking for more info on this. (Is not any RA treatment with good Phase 2 clinical trial results worthy of mention in Wikipedia ?) Good phase II clinical results means it is well past early stages of testing. UK National press often report phase I results and the earlier animal studies and even in vitro studies. Rod57 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

update: My POV was: Is WP more useful to RA patients with or without this stub? given that it is public knowledge that there are clinical trials that have started recruiting RA patients. I can't find a policy on when a new drug becomes notable but I'd suggest it is no later than the announcement of trials that will recruit patients. Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Puzzled by the non-notable claim, since pubmed is a sufficient but not necessary condition for notability. The 4 refs given testify to its notability. A drug doesn't have to be approved to be notable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having advanced into phase II of clinical study is sufficient evidence of notability, in my opinion. The advancement to phase II requires regulatory approval and thus the expectation of benefit to society by an independent authority. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not "expected" benefit, merely hoped for. How many trials get actually approved in the end? Less than 30 succeed, world wide What % is that? DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to reconsider on the basis of the references. I have examined them, and I am of the same view still. An experimental drug still in only the beginning half of stage II trials is not necessarily notable, unless the trial has been reported in non-indiscriminate RSs. Source 1 is a local business newspaper saying that it might be important if the trials are successful. Source 2 is an unrefereed meeting abstract of their phase 1 trial. 3 is a PR piece on an unedited web site. 4 is the routine regulatory registration of the trial. 5 is the best reference, an article from Business Wire, a site that has not always been considered here as reliable for showing notability, but it does give reliably the basic information that the drug has completed phase IIa of the trial, & they've signed a development agreement with Squibb. I think this is a classic case of not yet notable. Rod57s comment above is revealing: it's what people defending promotional articles often say--it's a good thing and people ought to be interested in it. Should we regard all phase three trials as notable? Perhaps, but this drug is not yet in phase III testing, or at least there is no reference to show it, despite the hints implying otherwise. Nor do I see any UK national newspaper coverage. There certainly is none in G News. If there were, it would change the result here, though it still would not justify as statement like "The relatively long half life of about 30 days should allow less frequent and subcutaneous injections." without a peer-reviewed reference. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- this is the type of article that needs specialist attention, and not just from 1 editor. The WikiProject Medicine has not yet been notified, so I notified it in what I hope is neutral terms. Perhaps other projects should be notified also. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well: We were just debating about a compound that only have like 6 hits anywhere. In all likelihood, there is a lot of literature on the target and some shallow coverage from industry rags. Offhand, it is probably just another mab but is there anything it should prove or disprove? Was it designed in some unique way or produced in a controversial system? etc etc. Personally I'd like to have a standardized searchable DB for all drug trials with some results if good or bad but I'm not sure wikipedia can do that well. So, it is probably as notable as a lot of other things that make it just because they are scientific and, if you give inherent notability to licensed radio stations, maybe you could just accept it even with minimal "stock" coverage (" it is a long molecule made up of amino acids and sugars. It stick to target foo until the Fc side is recognized by phagocyte etc etc"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonably well-written stub. Meets WP:V, and notability alone is a terrible reason to delete an otherwise decent article. - Draeco (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as Alder Biopharmaceuticals. Wikipedia can present information on this subject without forcing the investigational therapeutic into its own article. The company is probably notable; their three individual products are probably not yet notable. The three products, however, would probably make a nice and very WP:DUE section in an article about the business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea--I should have thought of that myself. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself makes no claim to notability, the citations are things like ads for clinical trials and one ASCO paper. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't regard phase II trials (or even phase III or IV trials) as evidence of notability. The references provided are not reliable medical sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and merge into research activities of the company Alder Biopharmaceuticals, as WhatamIdoing suggests. Drugs in trials are not (yet) proven fully effective & safe, certainly are not in any meaningful way in widespread use, and definitely have yet to establish any real world notability in gaining even a significant minority usage against existing treatment approaches (as it were they are 'trivial minority view'). They may be notable in the current work of a company and show the research direction that is being undertaken, and so possibly/probably should be (briefly) mentioned in a pharmaceutical company article. As Nerdseeksblonde & Axl point out, fluffy peacocking links are not proof of notability and so this and most other drugs in trial-stages generally should not exist IMHO (obvious case-by-case consideration rather than absolute blanket ban). David Ruben ^Talk 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not comment on the merits of keeping the article as I have a strongly inclusionist viewpoint when it comes to the notability of drugs and chemical compounds, but I will offer some suggestions. Belinostat is a good example of WhatamIdoing's suggestion in practice: information is presented as a subsection in the article on the manufacturer. When I come across a drug that seems to have notability potential (in the real world, not in the WP sense) and meets WP:V, I keep an outline of the article in my personal sandbox, ready to be expanded as new information becomes available and moved to mainspace when it's ready. I've had tecovirimat and tonabersat on this sort of "backburner" for quite a while now, and it works for me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very sensible, but I wonder if might not be best in a WP:PHARM subsection, so that others might help with articles "in preparation" as it were (and also reduce chance more than one editor have the same drugs in preparation). It would also help allow a collective review of pre-articles and decisions made when in each case appropriate to move out into main article space? David Ruben ^Talk 18:48, 21 November 2009 (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.