Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accurin

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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accurin[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional spam. Fails GNG. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge any useful pieces to Nanomedicine or other related pages) Yes, this is a promotional mess. Some of the claims do not correspond to the references cited, and there are much better places for this information (e.g., Nanomedicine). "Accurin" is a poor place to file information that people would want to access. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix/improve Article may now contain some advert like wording, eg the section on the promoting company, but that can be fixed without deleting the article which has been around for 7 years before a flurry of large edits this year. (It seems I made the original stub). They could be mentioned in nanomedicine, but like all the other applications mentioned that is just a summary referring to a separate article page. We can't dump everything about 1000 different nanomedicines in that one article. Since accurins have reached clinical trials they seem notable, even if they subsequently fail to be approved. - Rod57 (talk) 19:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How many therapeutics make it to CT before being rejected? Where is the coverage about accurin in media? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How does making it to clinical trials mean a drug is notable? Can you explain? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:33, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Fully agree Rod57, anything useful and backed by proper sourcing is better served at nanomedicine. Whether anything is usable will require someone with relevant experience. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:57, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nanomedicine is not in good shape and can be expanded with details about "Accurin". This article is just promotional and lacks enough peer-reviewed studies. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not sure if this material should be in Wikipedia anywhere or not, but it probably shouldn't be here. Accurin isn't used as a term in the scientific literature; it's a trademark - effectively, branding - for one particular company's products. The general idea of layered nanoparticles to modulate drug delivery isn't unique to this family of products. The company itself went bankrupt in 2015, and its remains were bought up by Pfizer in 2016. It looks like a couple of their products made it into early-stage human trials, but nothing got as far as Phase 3. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, inadequately sourced for a medical topic, and badly written to an extent that the prose isn't worth salvaging by a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2022 (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.