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 all. DO11.10 (talk) 04:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ananeuzumab[edit]

Per discussion on WT:PHARM (see WT:PHARM#Tiratumumab and WT:PHARM#Assessment), this and the 62 articles below, all on therapeutic monoclonal antibodies, have been assessed by myself, Paul gene (talk · contribs), and StephP (talk · contribs), and found to be unverifiable by publicly-available sources. While compounds with these names may even exist, we were unable to find reliable sources which could be used to expand or cite them. Their creator, Blake3522 (talk · contribs), has not yet responded to a note left on his Talk asking about sources he may have used. Delete all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find it hard to believe that the articles are hoaxes, but at the same time, I would need to see evidence that the antibodies actually exist. Some articles on similar subjects have the CAS number - that's all I would need to see in order to change this opinion to "keep all". Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find it incredibly unusual that these antibodies, some claimed to be used in the treatment of illnesses such as asthma and cancer, have no reliable sources that I can find. Pubmed shows nothing for the ones I searched, and the only google hits I could find were Wikipedia, various mirrors, and lists of antibodies I suspect were copied from a chain that leads to Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. that's quite the elaborate pile of bogosity, and I'm amazed it lasted this long. I'd be inclined to speedy some of these for no content, as many of them seem to only have one sentence saying that it's some antibody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. A really strange situation, but there doesn't seem to be anything verifiable in the bunch. Tim Ross·^talk 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. After reviewing the template, the user page, and his talk page, I can only conclude two things: (1) these might be hoaxes, or (2) these might be his own research. He appears to be on a long Wikibreak. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This is a hoax. Blake3522 (talk · contribs) AKA BlakeCS (talk · contribs) actually wrote on his userpage (see History, now deleted) that he "made up" these names using the nomenclature of monoclonal antibodies. The monoclonal antibody names actually consist of the therapeutical target of the antibody and of the source (how the antibody was made) plus the suffix -mab. So the information for the stub can be derived from a fictional name of the antibody, and that is what BlakeCS did. And some of the names just happened to match the real compounds. Paul gene (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well, he should get a job composing usans--or is that done by computer these days? I see there are apparently another 120 or so still being checked a the project--the ones that happen to have matched. This group are just the ones without any matches at all. I think that's clear enough for a speedy close.DGG (talk) 03:36, 29 November 2007 (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.