Talk:Signum Biosciences

review
OK, I went through and removed all PRIMARY sources in this set of diffs - i did them one by one. In this set of diffs I checked each secondary source, and none of them mentioned the compound. at the end of that set of diffs, no sources in the article.

I then searched pubmed for SIG1273 and found two sources, both PRIMARY - and, both by the same set of authors at Signum Dermalogix. Not independent :(    another  pubmed search for "Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine" gave one of those two.

OK, so no reviews, no independent sources indexed in pubmed.

What can we do here?

Did some digging, and it turns out there is a startup out of Princeton called Signum Biosciences website that has two subsidiaries - Signum Nutralogix and Signum Dermaologix. Signum Nutralogix in turn sells dietary supplements through a website called Mesports website. OK. So maybe turn this into an article on Signum Biosciences and merge the other article created by this user Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide (this is the product sold by ME sports) into this.

OK, looking for sources and will do that. Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Jytdog great work, thank you ( oy. just oy) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is a real article. I don't think it would survive an AfD. There really are not good sources on this company either. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * you did get good refs (considering what you had to work with)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like this one should go to AfD. Even after substantial work by Jytdog the sources don't seem to support notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the article gives no indication of significant notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot argue with that.  have a look at the original form of this article, and [[Eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide.  Should they both go to AfD?  ack Jytdog (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

you too Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks for reviewing the article. if you would also have a look at this article before i worked it over and its friend] before i redirected it here, and look at what i did as I described above, and let me know if we have ended up at a reasonable place or if we should just AfD both of them... or something else?  i  would appreciate that.


 * folks please note that i had an extensive discussion about COI and editing WP in general, with editor who created both these articles, see User_talk:Sigrd. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Those are well-written and interesting articles but, for the reasons you've outlined on Sigrd's talk page they can't stay here. This is an exciting molecule and I wish the developers all the best with it. I think it's important that we do have the current article because there is already interest in the PD and AD communities, so we can point them to the existing secondary sources and hopefully add to that as more good independent reviews emerge. User: Sigrd, if you could keep this talk page up to date as new reviews emerge we'd really appreciate it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)