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. → Call meHahc21 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:PRODUCT. I can't find any significant coverage. References have been added since I PRODed it, but these are passing mentions.
SmartSE (
talk) 00:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment (ping
User:Smartse) - How do you perceive this seven page source (presently in the Wikipedia article) about the topic as only consisting of passing mentions? This is
significant coverage.
Schwartz, Stephen R; Park, Joosang Park (July 2012). "Ingestion of BioCell Collagen, a novel hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage extract; enhanced blood microcirculation and reduced facial aging signs". Clinical Interventions in Aging. pp. 267–273.
PMC3426261. {{
cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (
help); Missing or empty |url= (
help)
These were also all funded by the company. As primary research papers, they are also not very useful as sources per
WP:MEDRS.
SmartSE (
talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per Northamerica1000's reliable source finds. I'm not sure about the Natural Medicine Journal, but the other journals look reputable. --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment Reading the WP article gives no clue as to what "BioCell Collagen" is, other than its composition: at the very least the article should mention that it is a (commercial) dietary supplement. (As in sentence 2 of the abstract of
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3426261/ )
Imaginatorium (
talk) 05:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Note I've asked members of
WP:MED to take a look.
SmartSE (
talk) 12:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment-- the sources pasted above by Northamerica1000 are not reliable per SmartSE's comments. Need independent secondary and tertiary sources.
Lesion (
talk) 12:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Entire based on primary sources. No evidence of notability.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have struck my keep !vote above per the discourse that has occurred here.
NorthAmerica1000 20:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment I have struck my keep recommendation, too, based on new evidence that these sources may be reliable, but are not independent. Thanks for digging into this, SmartSE. --
Mark viking (
talk) 21:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)reply
No problem. Thanks for taking another look.
SmartSE (
talk) 14:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - per all of the above, sources providing significant coverage are primary in nature, and third-party sources are only providing passing mentions.
NorthAmerica1000 14:43, 21 March 2014 (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.