Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Botanical additives


 * 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 merge to Phytogenics. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Botanical additives

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is based on two assumptions for which there is little or no accepted evidence or science-based practice: 1) that any of these botanical sources are used as additives in any significant volume; and 2) that such additives would have any biological effect in vivo. Little work has been done on the article over recent years and most of the sources are out of date and not solid per WP:SCIRS. There is a 3-year old proposal for merger with Phytochemical but such a merger would add nothing to the Phytochemical article. Zefr (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The nomination really says it all. The article does not present any evidence that the listed botanicals are in fact used as feed additives.  The author of the page appears to have no knowledge of such use either, considering the use of wording such as "Examples of plants could be" (emphasis mine).  Deli nk (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Possibly merge with Phytogenics. This fact sheet by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians suggests such additives are in use - at least in pig production - even if their benefits are unproven. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Question I could not access the sources, but they seem to be from reliable journals. The concentration of all those plants in a single article may still violate WP:SYNTH; but if they do support the claims of the article, this would prove the nomination's first part to be factually incorrect. Did anyone access these? Tigraan Click here to contact me 12:08, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did check the references which I suggest fall into 4 general categories: 1) studies of extracts, an impractical format for commercial feed uses; 2) studies in vitro or in lab animals, WP:PRIMARY as not suitable to imply true biological effects; 3) preliminary feeding studies on chickens (ref. 2) or pigs (ref. 7) for which there are no indications industrially for adoption; 4) there are no systematic reviews of literature or practices. All of this suggests to me an area of research and practice that are only a fanciful hypothesis, i.e., unencyclopedic. --Zefr (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources in the article may currently be being used in a WP:SYNTHy way, but this doesn't seem to me to be sufficient basis for deleting the article. These products might not have been scientifically proven to be efficacious, but are they being used and described as being in use by reliable sources? That seems to me to be the more pertinent question. The 2010 AASV fact sheet that I linked to earlier, for example, states that "phytogenics are plant-derived products used in feed to potentially improve pig performance". In the same year there's this article in the Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, which states that "Phytogenic are a relatively young class of feed additives and in recent years this feed additives have gained considerable attention in the feed industry", and this article in the Journal of Applied Poultry Research, which states that "Some [...] plant-derived (phytogenic) feed additives are gaining market presence". More recently - and possibly more persuasively - there's this 2016 report from Global Market Insights, which, although acknowledging that these compounds have a "lack of efficacy", still states that "Essential oil feed phytogenics market [has a] valuation of over USD 225 million in 2014" and that "Poultry production application dominated the phytogenic feed additives market consumption with valuation at over USD 180 million in 2014.". These are not fanciful quantities. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for summarizing these research reports – which are notably several years old – and the market report which indicates an industry having potential for growth, if mainly as a forecast conspicuous by its absence of sources. My two critical points mentioned in the nomination for deletion, however, remain true, reflecting whether the article is WP:UNDUE and not WP:N. I remain open to further evaluation and feedback here. --Zefr (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did not summarise the research reports, I picked out lines to illustrate the fact that these products are being used regardless of whether or not they have been scientifically proved to be efficaceous. That is the issue. Whether they are efficaceous is not relevant for notability purposes, unless a proven lack of effectiveness results in products not being used and not being written about. The market report quotes state the global value of such additives in 2014 - that is not a forecast. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC) If the article is to be deleted because it's short, boring, hasn't been maintained, and is not particularly informative, I would agree, but I cannot agree with the idea of deleting it because the references are old, or because a group of editors don't believe the science (sympathetic though I am to their skepticism. (1) All the references are 2000 onward - and in any case, scientific literature doesn't cease to be relevant merely because of its age. Experimental work is supposed to be repeatable, which means that whether it was done in 2015, 1950,or 1800, the result should be the same in 2025. Reviews of experimental work reflect genuine knowledge, and only become obsolete when newer reviews are available. (2) To delete because we dislike or disbelieve the science is fundamentally wrong. If the page's author has cited genuine, peer-reviewed literature, then it can only be disproved  by subsequent equally reliable peer-reviewed literature, not by a general feeling.(3) even if the science is complete rubbish, unless someone can overturn the fact that a lot of money got spent on these things only 2 years ago, then there is a valid claim of relevance. 79.65.235.88 (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Merging with Phytogenics seems like a good idea. I think the references are, by and large, fine; what is unsuitable is the extremely fuzzy presentation and random-seeming choice of examples. There's currently no basis for a standalone article here. These might, however, work in the context of the "modes of action" section in Phytogenics, with the added benefit of bringing a few refs to that unref'd section.-- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merging with Phytogenics seem like a good proposal to me too. There is considerable overlap between the two pages. While Botanical additives could have a larger scope, the current focus of the article is on supplementing animals feeds, which matches well with the scope of the Phytogenics page. Klbrain (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.