Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NmVac4-A/C/Y/W-135


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

NmVac4-A/C/Y/W-135
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable vaccine -- also appears to be mostly copied from the package insert. See also the other AfDs for similar articles. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 16:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 16:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but merge into one general article on meningococcus vaccination and cleanup. Meningococcus vaccine is definitely notable (see meningitis, which discusses its advantages in clear detail) but not all commercially available forms need their own pages. JFW | T@lk  21:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree per above Hard to find references to the given name but notable in a great way in it's non-scientific name. T-H
 * Delete Notable topic but non-salvageable content (copy/paste work). Don't block it from being created anew or redirected somewhere. Narayanese (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't seem to be encyclopedic, it has no in-line references and there isn't a good indication of notability. If it's kept it shouldn't be more than a couple lines about the vaccine. It doesn't seem appropriate to have medical information that isn't verifiable floating around. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per discussion of sensible alternative to deletion and to support consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You'll find both polysaccharide and conjugate vaccines against this bacterium already covered at Neisseria meningitidis. Uncle G (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The first 4 references don't support the text they have been attached to, rather the opposite. The picture to he left has a questionable license ("granted permission to use at Wikipedia", I guess it doesn't cover eg mirror sites). And the text still echos http://www.jnii-usa-bharat.com/NmVac4.pdf word for word. But I see User:Peter grotzinger is still working on the article, perhaps it will at one point in the future have some actual content. Narayanese (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to the general article, per Uncle G.DGG (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well written, helpful articles with new information and good references Kelly F.KL''' (talk) 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Scientific name should be mentioned along with Trade name, per Scott D.SM (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not convince me that the product is sufficiently notable in its own right to have an article. (The text is also in need of a complete rewrite, were it to be kept.) I think it may be appropriate to include the subject in a broader article on vaccines, but I don't see the need for an article on the drug itself. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep it the product may be categorized "Emerging vaccines for important diseases". Dana (talk) 9:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A vaccine for a Neglected killer Disease. KEEP IT. CH''' (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2008 (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.