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 merge to B-cell maturation antigen#As a drug target as a WP:ATD. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ALLO-715 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The therapy is in clinical trial and that means its an instance of WP:OR. This also gets confirmed as there are only primary sources and academic research papers that cites the therapy and absolutely no secondary references. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOR. Cirton (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm the initial author of the original article. The assumption that a therapy is in clinical trial and that means its an instance of WP:OR is absolutely, manifestly false. Plenty of drugs that are in clinical trials are written about and discussed extensively. There's no WP:OR involved. It was covered in two of the most reputable journals in science, Blood and Nature. Everything in the wikipedia article derives from those secondary sources, which means it's not WP:OR. I would love to know what in the article is not present in a cited source. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a drug is in clinical trial, it only means that the drug is a product of a research which is not complete yet and its effectiveness is yet to be judged based on informed, calculated trials. This intrinsically means that any drug in clinical trial is a product of original research and such being the case, its pretty understandable that the drug will have almost no secondary sources. But the drug must pass the clinical trial in order to be perceived as notable. Trivial mentions of the drug in some science magazine article can only be cited to prove that the drug exists, not that the drug is notable. Also, reports of the clinical trial is primary source by definition, so your improvements in terms of adding these unfortunately didn't lead to any better as of now. Cirton (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On wiki, OR = a Wikipedia editor made up the contents all by himself. When a reliable source does the original research, then it is not a violation of the Wikipedia:No original research policy. See the definition at the start of the policy: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." When the information comes from reliable sources, it is not a violation of OR. I realize that this is confusing; we should probably consider renaming the policy to something like WP:No original research by Wikipedia editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cirton (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOTJUSTYET Exciting new drug, but no significant secondary coverage. See also WP:MEDRS— rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Discussed in Blood and Nature... pretty sure that's as good secondary coverage as it is going to get. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The Blood reference is a primary source, and the Nature reference is, well, more of a news report, though it does have a touch of review in it: quoting some of the FDA panel. I'd consider the Nature ref to be secondary coverage, but weak. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 23:34, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added some additional references. There's definitely a non-insignificant amount of commentary on ALLO-715 in the biopharma sphere. A little specific, but outlets such as FierceBiotech reported on it, which is fairly solid stuff in the field. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    "Current state and next-generation CAR-T cells in multiple myeloma" is a review article, which is definitely a secondary source. So is this news article, which reports that one patient in a clinical trial died. It would be good to see some non-biomedical content in this article. Experimental drugs may be interesting for purely medical reasons, but they're also significant business products. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per rsjaffe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:25, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to B-cell maturation antigen#As a drug target (where it ought to be mentioned). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The rationale for nomination is completely flawed. Being in clinical trial is not Original Research. Academic research papers are not necessarily WP:PRIMARY. Nevertheless, let's evaluate the article the sources in it, and other sources that WP:NEXIST. The article in Nature ([1]) is certainly not WP:PRIMARY, nor WP:OR. It is WP:SIGCOV. This [2] in cancernetwork is certainly neither WP:PRIMARY, nor WP:OR. It is WP:SIGCOV. Here's an article in Fortune [3], that's more independent in-depth coverage from an independent source that takes a financial perspective rather than a medical/scientific point of view. These are enough to establish notability under the general notability guideline; there are more good sources in the article. So, Keep. Jacona (talk) 00:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Clinical trials are primary sources. See WP:IDPRIMARY. You need to identify reviews or other reports that are not primary to establish notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 03:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, clinical trials are primary sources, but no "being in clinical trials" does not make independent reports on those clinical trials primary. Jacona (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. I was being pedantic because this nomination started with a confused back-and-forth discussion that messed up the distinction between primary sources, original research, and the need for secondary sources for notability. And strewn in was the incorrect idea that being in clinical trials guaranteed notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:52, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - without splitting hairs, citation # 7 is to a secondary source. In any case, I agree with this being too soon for an encyclopedia. I would not object to the proposed merger. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 26 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.