Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retinal gene therapy using lentiviral vectors


 * 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   keep. — Aitias // discussion  00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Retinal gene therapy using lentiviral vectors

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I wouldn't say this is exactly original research but it seems like synthesizing sources enough to qualify as original research. Also, some admin may want to merge this history with User:Chuckw2/Retinal Gene Therapy Using Lentiviral Vectors, where the article was originally drafted, to get the full history properly. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although links should be added to the article Leber's congenital amaurosis, the topic of gene therapy to treat LCA (a rare, inherited and, historically, untreatable disease that leads to blindness) is most certainly notable. I understand the synthesizing concerns, but unless this is untrue, I view this more as an attempt to explain the subject to us laypersons.  I don't mind saying that the narrative would have to be "dumbed down" for folks like me. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like WP:OR to me. I don't see any cited sources actually discussing the topic, just supporting factoids included in the article. Drawn Some (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete OR, synthesis, advert, crystal, lack of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Suitable   topic for an article: if it were just this one disease, it could me merged there, but the article talks about the potential for other diseases as well. What looks like OR   is probably sourceable to the refs listed . Editing is needed, not deletion.DGG (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Looks like OR and synthesis to me. None of the sources support the basic structure of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What you say? The basic structure of the article?  What does that mean exactly?   D r e a m Focus  11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A notable subject, well sourced. AFD is not cleanup.  If you think it needs some work, talk about it on the discussion page of the article.   D r e a m Focus  11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, Move to "Retinal gene therapy", and clean-up. The references are good enough to establish notability. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The thing is real, it was published in Nature . Being terribly written is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2009 (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.