Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bemarituzumab

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. MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bemarituzumab[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)

The antibody is still in investigation phase. Too early for an entry in Wikipedia. Not verified whether the drug has been approved for human use. PubMed has no information related to the topic. Hitro talk 07:37, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this appears to be WP:TOOSOON, especially if "As of 2010, about 50% of drug candidates either fail during the Phase III trial or are rejected by the national regulatory agency" (from Phases of clinical research#Phase III) is still correct. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep experimental drugs are considered to be notable at phase II. This drug is in phase III trials. Natureium (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless Natureium can point to a guideline verifying that phase III drugs are intrinsically notable. The only ref in the article is for the assignment of a nonpropriety name by the WHO. That's about as WP:ROUTINE and WP:TRIVIALMENTION as it gets. SpinningSpark 22:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find where I've read this in the past, so I'll hold off on using that as a reason until I can do a deeper search. I'm actually pretty tired of trying to keep track of all the things that are considered notable regardless of RS for no reason other than that at some point someone decided that they are notable. (tiny villages, trains stations, small legislative districts, extinct species, roads, etc.) Natureium (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. I couldn't find any mention in PubMed, which is a red flag. However there are press releases available so I added one (Business Wire) to the article. I also added a short description from the National Cancer Institute. I looked for a specific drugs notability guideline in Wikipedia, at WP:N, WP:SNG and WP:PHARM, but we don't seem to have one. In particular, I could find no mention of Phase II or III drugs being inherently notable. I am reluctant to delete because I think that bemarituzumab is likely to become notable in the next couple of years. Nevertheless, I acknowledge that the drug does not currently meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline standard. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Axl: We could userfy it, if you want to curate it. SpinningSpark 14:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my userspace, thanks. I don't have any special interest in this article/drug. Of course I have no objection to userfication into another willing editor's userspace. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:52, 19 November 2018 (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.