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. ✗plicit 00:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BIND-014[edit]

BIND-014 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since it reached clinical trials. or merge into accurin if that survives afd. - Rod57 (talk) 19:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  How does the existence of clinical trials make a drug notable? Can you explain? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It leads to papers being published such as those cited in the article and those found by clicking on the word "scholar" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It needs independent secondary coverage, which clinical trials are not. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 21:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TNT; this would have to be rewritten from scratch based on review articles rather than initial reports, and it's not clear that such suitable sources as exist do actually support having a stand-alone page. If we are to write about this topic, we need different text and different citations, and probably we'd do it in a different article. XOR'easter (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accurin discussion and lack of secondary sources. Paradoxsociety 20:18, 29 May 2022 (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.