Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivecon

:{{la|Vivecon}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vivecon Stats])

:({{Find sources|Vivecon}})

Only ref is broken, no WP:MEDRS sources found, not even a chemical structure. Seems to be discontinued. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• keep. Research into this drug appears to be ongoing; mentioned in three papers published this year available at [http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_ylo=2012&q=%22vivecon%22+hiv&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5], as well as several from 2010 and 2011. JulesH (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• keep. Actively researched compound, multiple reputable sources discuss, this article should be expanded, not deleted. Bryan Hopping ^T 15:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• comment Bryan, thanks for adding refs to the mechanism section -- but the reliable ones (i.e. all but the one from the Myriad homepage) seem to mention neither "vivecon" nor "MPC-9055". Did I overlook something? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• delete. There is no evidence that this is an actively researched compound. Searching ClinicalTrials.gov for [http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Myriad Myriad] reveals that Myriad currently has no HIV maturation inhibitors in clinical trials. Searching the Myriad Genetics web site for [http://www.myriad.com/search/search.php?query=Vivecon&x=30&y=16&search=1 vivecon] or [http://www.myriad.com/search/search.php?query=MPC-9055&x=35&y=9&search=1 MPC-9055] (the research code for Vivecon) yields no hits. The google scholar citations are to patent applications by competitor companies who only are listing Vivecon as prior art and are not developing the compound themselves. If the chemical structure of the compound were disclosed by Myriad Genetics, then I would be opposed to deletion. But Myriad Genetics has disclosed so little information about the compound, there is no point in keeping the article. Boghog (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:: This announcement seem very relevant: [http://www.aidsmeds.com/articles/hiv_bevirimat_mpc4326_1667_18528.shtml Myriad Genetics Suspends Its HIV Maturation Inhibitor Program] Bevirimat is a different maturation inhibitor, but it appears that Myriad Genetics shut down their entire maturation inhibitor research program in favor of oncology drugs. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Even if research into the compound were suspended, the article would still be noteworthy. Commercially-unsuccessful research is just as noteworthy as research that leads to commercialized products.Bryan Hopping ^T 20:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

::::According to this [http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Myriad_Genetics_(MYGN)/Mpc-9055 Myriad Genetics 8K filing], Vivecon (MPC-9055) was a clinical backup compound to Bevirimat (MPC-4326) and the two compounds work through similar mechanisms. Bevirimat has also been discontinued, but in contrast to Vivecon, a substantial amount of data has been published on Bevirimat in reliable sources. I agree with you that even failed drugs are noteworthy but they must also be backed up by reliable sources. Bevirimat passes this second test while Vivecon does not. (note: this [http://retroconference.org/2009/PDFs/561.pdf meeting poster] gives more detail on Vivecon, but it has not been published in a peer review journal and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source). Boghog (talk) 15:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

---

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

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• comment. As stated above, Vivecon is a discontinued drug candidate whose chemical structure has not been disclosed. Furthermore very little data has been published about the drug in reliable sources. Failed drugs can be noteworthy, but only if they continue to be used as research tools or enough information has been disclosed about them to indicate why they have been discontinued. Neither applies to Vivecon. Boghog (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

::There is never any reason to vote twice. Anarchangel (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

:::Changed above heading from "delete" to "comment". Because the discussion had become somewhat convoluted, I merely wanted to restate the argument more clearly and succinctly. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient information for an article. The delete arguement is that there should be yet more, but enough work wa done to make this notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• comment Sorry for being anal, but the whole information of this article is just two sentences, which isn't much more than a dicdef. The "Mechanism of action" section is about maturation inhibitors in general. I've added the relevant information to that article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
• comment Just to be absolutely clear, this article does not contain a single reliable source that specifically mentions Vivecon. Furthermore "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify this article have failed". Boghog (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2012 (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.