A minimally-referenced stub for an investigational compound. It has reached Stage 2 trials, though, so there will be some reader interest. There are many such pages for combination antiretrovirals, but in this case I wonder whether the content might be better merged with, say, bictegravir. Regardless, linking from other pages would be helpful.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
@Klbrain: - Hey! Thanks so much for your input. It's in stage 3, no? Regarding merging; I think this is a simple question of WP:NOTABILITY. Either a drug combination is notable, in which case it should have its own article, or it's not, in which case maybe merging would be approrpriate. I can't say I'm super familar with this topic, so I don't have a strong opinion. But after a brief glance, it seems like like the combination receives a good amount of direct coverage in prestigious academic journals (e.g. Nature, The Lancet). I don't see much or any coverage outside of academic settings. I think my personal opinion would be that the combination probably meets WP:GNG, though I would certainly understand if others came to a different opinion. Anyways, the "right" setting for this conversation if you did want to merge would probably be WP:AfD. I wouldn't oppose having a conversation there. Thanks again for taking a look! NickCT (talk) 13:19, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
Merging doesn't haven't to rely on the question of notability; merges can and are done for reasons of overlap, short text and context even when there is independent notability, and all of those reasons apply here. The key question is whether the advantages for readers outweigh any disadvantages. However, I don't feel strongly enough about this to make the formal proposal. On another procedural point - merges don't have to go through AfD; they can be done boldly (it's not clear enough to do this) or through local consensus-building (WP:MERGE).
@Klbrain: - Right. Everything you've said here is right, but the primary policy we look to when asking "Does this topic/subject deserve its own article?" is WP:NOTABILITY. And stuff definitely doesn't have to go to AfD. AfD can just be a good forum to gather opinions on whether something should be a stand-alone article, or whether it should be merged (or deleted).
On a related note; given the proliferation of combination drugs, it would be interesting to ask whether notability of combinations could use some project specific guidance (e.g. something like a Wikipedia:Notability (pharmacology). NickCT (talk) 12:58, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
You've pointed to the right page (WP:NOTABILITY), but decisions about whether a page is required are more nuanced and also depend on whether the topic is best discussed in the context of another topic (as discussion in the section WP:PAGEDECIDE). That's why context, overlap and short text are all relevant. Regarding project-specific guidance I agree that WikiProject Pharmacology is a good place for this project specific guidance to be developed. Klbrain (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
I agree to some extent. But I think notability is really the key factor. Imagine if cars just consisted of engines and chassis. You have to decide whether to make articles for "car", "engine", and/or "chassis". The way to start answering that question is just to ask; "Is car notable? Is engine notable? Is chassis notable?". If the answer is "yes" to all three, then all three probably deserve a page. I guess there may be situations where chassis are only marginally or borderline notable, in which case overlap on "car" might make you decide to merge chassis. I'm not sure that's the case with this article though.
Anyways, one practical consideration here; if we were to merge, where do we merge to? Lenacapavir? Bictegravir? Both? NickCT (talk) 19:52, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
