Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BioCell Collagen

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 me Hahc21 22:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BioCell Collagen

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

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. PMC 3426261. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That research was funded by the company and therefore is not independent. SmartSE (talk) 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - Passes WP:GNG per~~ Some sources:

"Ingestion of BioCell Collagen, a novel hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage extract; enhanced blood microcirculation and reduced facial aging signs". Clinical Interventions in Aging.
"Effect of the Novel Low Molecular Weight Hydrolyzed Chicken Sternal Cartilage Extract, BioCell Collagen, on Improving Osteoarthritis-Related Symptoms: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial". Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry.
"Acute and subchronic oral toxicity studies in rats of a hydrolyzed chicken sternal cartilage preparation". Food and Chemical Toxicology.
"Effects of Resveratrol and Collagen Supplementation on Facial Aging". Natural Medicine Journal. (The official journal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians)

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 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.