Talk:Senecavirus

Clinical trials section

user:WhatamIdoing removed my addition of clinical trials to this page and stated that Wikipedia is not a recruiting post for clinical trials. I agree with that statement but feel that the inclusion of this information is important as the virus is being developed as an anti-cancer agent and the clinical trials it has been through/is in indicate the progress toward an accepted therapy and will be of interest to the general readership. Lists of clinical trials exist on all other oncolytic virus pages. I had only given the bare details of the trials and did not promote them in any way. The phase I trial is complete and published in a peer-reviewed journal, I will cite that as this improves the notability. I believe the others are ongoing and as such no results have been reported. I have undone the deletion but would welcome any discussion on the matter here. Viraltonic (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note.

Why? What encyclopedic information is being presented here? I understand the value of a general description of the process (maybe at Oncolytic virus), but that's not what was offered here. I understand the value of up-to-date news for this specific virus' development for investors and potential participants in the trial (either as patients or as staff), but we're NOTNEWS. Where's the lasting encyclopedic value in detailing the list of this strain's current trials?

WP:MEDMOS says "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers". A statement of where they stand in the process would be appropriate and valuable, but I don't believe that a directory listing of all the ongoing clinical trials is appropriate for any article, even if WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in a few related articles. We don't do this for experimental drugs of the chemical sort, or for biologics, or for experimental vaccines—neither for those that are approved nor for those that are in development. Why should oncolytic viruses by the exception? WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Surely the encyclopedic information is that this virus has been tested in these cancers and proved to be safe/effective. Any casual reader on the pages is likely to wonder if these viruses have been used in humans and how far along development is. I accept that a brief statement of the tumor types tested would suffice for that purpose, but anyone wishing to seek more detailed information might like to have it. I don't think a list of three trials is too intrusive in the overall article. Where trials have been conducted and results published in peer-reviewed journals there is greater value in mentioning the trial, compared to an incomplete trial with no results posted. If your objection is the directory-like nature of that section would you prefer just the summary I have made of the phase 1 trial with the cited peer-reviewed journal, and other trials only mentioned once they have been published and shown something more interesting? Viraltonic (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)