Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cavatak

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cavatak[edit]

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

As it has not even reached stage III trials, it is not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the approach is interesting scientifically, this specific therapeutic candidate is still early-stage and non-notable. Not clear that it will ever be notable. -- Scray (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I originally created the Cavatak entry as it was a "dead end link" from another Wikipedia entry Oncolytic virus, (which mentioned the product). Surprised that it is being marked for deletion as there are many other oncolytic viruses that have wikipedia entries such as JX-594. Cavatak is written in the same style. No skin off my back if cavatak is deleted, just that it's inconsistent with other experimental oncolytic viruses listed on wikipedia. Clearly an expert in the field of oncolytic virotherapy thought it was worth listing on the Oncolytic virus page, and to contribute, I completed the entry on the product--Goughau (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost, the existence of other stuff does not prevent deletion of this stuff. That said: JX-594 has ~~orphan drug status,~~ some evidence for mortality benefit, and was the first-in-class drug to show benefit from a single dose. Cavatak is just another candidate. -- Scray (talk) 11:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cavatak also has orphan drug status (link here) and benefit to patients reported at several oncology conferences. Some recent news is listed here. Regardless, Cavatak is listed on the US NIH's - clinicaltrials.gov website and the wikipedia entry could be of use to melanoma patients. Cavatak is the first picornavirus being tested for efficacy in melanoma patients and of a totally different virus family to JX-594, which makes it notable. --Goughau (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've stricken the non-distinguishing feature; but as I said the first consideration is that the existence of the JX-594 page is not a criterion for inclusion of the Cavatak page. The latter is not notable even with the information you've added here. Most of what's in clinicaltrials.gov is not suitable for Wikipedia. My recommendation remains "delete". -- Scray (talk) 13:32, 28 December 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, SarahStierch (talk) 03:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework as an article on the parent company which is notable and well covered. See here and here for example. I am happy to do the editing but don't want to upset anyone, so please advise me when the time is ripe for me to go ahead and make the needed changes. THanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is a VERY small company. Three employees.. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2014 (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.