Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CCX832


 * 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 CMKLR1. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades Godric 08:18, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

CCX832

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to have been discontinued before Phase II, no hits regarding human studies found on PubMed or Clinicaltrials.gov. No WP:MEDRS sources found. No structure found on ChemSpider or PubChem, so it might meet WP:A1. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still being used as an investigational compound  and is listed on the Guide to Pharmacology database as the only example of a CMKLR1 antagonist . Given that there aren't alternative tools at present for targetting this receptor, it seems like a helpful tool. Perhaps it could be merged to the receptor it targets. Klbrain (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hm. I suppose treating it as a pharmacology research tool instead of an investigational drug means it needn't be WP:MEDRS compliant and needn't be notable as a drug; and your sources should be enough to establish general notability. Pity there isn't a structure available. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * merge and redirect to its biological target, CMKLR1, since its main use is study of that receptor. Doesn't really meet N on its own, and WP is not a catalog of reagents.  Jytdog (talk) 18:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Support that. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2017 (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.