Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ABT-874

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 merged relevant non crystal info into Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress and Psoriasis#Future_drug_development, with a redirect to Treatment of Crohn's disease#Research on medications in progress as suggested by User:Espresso Addict. Gnangarra 14:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ABT-874

ABT-874 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable test drug. Article states it may be approved by FDA in 2010. WP:CRYSTAL OfficeGirl 17:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


As someone who suffers from crohn's disease, I can tell you that this drug is very notable and offers a promising treatment using anti-interleukin therapy. Slyfoxman7 20:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)— Slyfoxman7 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete. For now, premature. Not enough sources yet. • Lawrence Cohen 21:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of assertion of notability, with no prejudice against recreation if notability can be established. Someguy1221 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The drug is entering phase IIb/III clinical trials for Crohn's disease & psoriasis and therefore will be offered to many thousands of test subjects who might be interested in information from Wikipedia. Plenty of independent references exist, for example this highly cited NEJM paper: [1]. At very least, it should be merged (with redirect retained) into the discussions of upcoming treatments for Crohn's in one/both of Biological therapy for inflammatory bowel disease & Treatment of Crohn's disease, as well as psoriasis ([2]). Espresso Addict 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It may prove to be important but it is not at this point notable for an encyclopedia on the basis of the limited amount of material available-. The importance of the disease does not necessarily justify an article on the drug.DGG (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, mostly per Espresso Addict. Stubby, with two relatively reliable sources and two less so, but solution is to expand, not delete, and there's nothing inherently wrong with stubs if the subject is notable. Notability is a little borderline, but I lean toward keep since it does no harm and may do someone some good. If it is deleted, agree again that material should be merged into the articles mentioned by Espresso Addict, but that would be my second choice. --barneca (talk) 13:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
comment If there is real, sourced information on this to be had, it still might be best to put that information in the Crohn's disease article. Once this drug is approved by the FDA it will be known by a trade name like Viagra or Vioxx. Nobody knows to search for this term, but they will know the trade name and they will know Crohn's disease. This nomenclature of ABT-874 is only helpful to a few who are more familiar with the technical side of things. Not a suitable article title for a general public encyclopedia.OfficeGirl 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If the drug is approved, the article should be moved to the generic name (not the tradename), retaining a redirect. The current absence of a generic/tradename seems irrelevant to the question of whether the agent is notable; many newly approved drugs are well known to patients by their investigational codes. Espresso Addict 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
(e/c)Hi OfficeGirl, I do see your point, and maybe a move to the trade name will be appropriate in the future, and a redirect and merge now would certainly not be the end of the world. For me, though, if notability is borderline and it isn't a BLP or an attempt at an ad, I'd slightly lean towards including the article, on the theory that it does no harm (insert whatever the link to "it's not paper" is here), and might do some good. I think at this point someone interested in the subject might very well run across the current name and want to know more. --barneca (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
At this point we don't even have a generic name for this drug. Users in this discussion have shown very good evidence that the information can be well documented and notable, but for inclusion under Crohn's disease. I think this information should be moved to Crohn's disease and a new article with the generic name should be created as soon as the generic name is known. That's what I think would be best. I'm a bit more ambivalent on that assertion since the reliable sources for the information are present.OfficeGirl 18:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with moving the material to Crohn's disease is that the agent is also under clinical investigation for psoriasis. Espresso Addict 18:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
We don't have enough paper in this encyclopedia to reference this test drug in both articles about both diseases? I'll make a run to Office Depot or Kinko's....OfficeGirl 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
One could make the same argument for retaining the present article ;) Espresso Addict 18:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
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.