Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMP321


 * 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 23:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

IMP321

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a company's lead compound, which may create issues of notability, reliability, or neutrality. It also may be promotional and there may be a conflict of interest. See the discussion page. Roches (talk) 11:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean that the article has all these issues, but I want to see what others think about it. In particular, I am not saying that there is a CoI here, or that the article is promotional. I'm trying to see what should be done for lead compounds in general.

I'm not aware of a guideline or a precedent, but this is a special category of molecule, and I think there should be a guideline for lead compounds in the pharmaceutical industry. Here are some possible issues that would apply to any such article:


 * 1) Notability: The criteria for notability for small molecules seems to be very low; almost anything with a CAS number can get an article with a sentence or two about the compound. But what about large molecules? Is every gene, every protein, every peptide, every antibody, notable?
 * 2) Reliability of sources, neutrality: A small pharmaceutical company hinges on its lead compound. These may remain in development for decades. If FDA approval is obtained, the company's value increases enormously. Until that happens, the company's survival depends on its ability to convince investors that the drug is marketable. This can lead to issues with sources, even scientific papers, and the article may not be NPOV.
 * 3) Promotional, CoI issues: For the same reasons, the Wikipedia article for a lead compound is especially susceptible to a promotional tone or to authorship with a conflict of interest. Authors with a CoI would include shareholders and employees of the company.

There are a lot of companies with a lot of lead compounds. Many of the people who have even heard of a company would have a CoI. And, because the companies need to attract investors who are confident the lead compound is marketable, the presence of a Wikipedia article may create an unfair real-world competitive advantage for companies who have articles for their lead compounds. The biggest issue I have personally is that nearly every lead compound is described as if it is extremely effective and entirely safe. I've been reading about them for long enough that I fail to understand why disease still exists when so many promising drugs have been in the pipeline.

I think it would best to include lead compounds only in the company's article, rather than having separate articles about the lead compound. This company's article, for example, does discuss the lead compound. When the compound is discussed in context, as a company's product, it can be described in the way that Wikipedia requires. When it's discussed as a molecule, I think, there are risks.

'''Once again, I'm not necessarily asserting these things about this particular lead compound. This should be viewed as a request to merge the information with the parent company article, not to obliterate the information.''' If it's more appropriate to discuss this in some other way please let me know. Roches (talk) 11:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I would argue that, so long as everything is properly referenced, there's no reason why lead compounds can't have articles of their own. Most readers may be interested in the compounds and not the companies, largely because they are accessing the article to lean about new drugs rather than companies in which to invest. To avoid the issues Roches has noted, I suggest that it be Wikipedia policy that such articles require mention that they are a lead compound in the first line OzBioMan (talk) 8:40, 30 April 2015 (AEST)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * {|cellpadding=0 style="border: 1px solid #A3A3A3; background-color: #FFFFFF" align=left width=auto

Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice. North America1000 08:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * }
 * Keep - as long as it is properly sourced I also don't see a problem. Of course it needs to be written with WP:NPOV - an issue would be if the article only includes positive information and conveniently skips coverage that is potential negative. I do agree with you that there should be a guideline for this information, and for pharmaceuticals as a whole. It would be helpful if WikiProject Pharmacology established a notability guideline like other groups have done (for example, academic, athletes etc). We could really use that in this AfD Articles for deletion/Panadol. —Мандичка YO 😜 14:20, 21 May 2015 (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.