Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KiSel-10


 * 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. Tone 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

KiSel-10

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I cannot see why this clinical trial is noteworthy. The refs are to stuff by the researchers and there is no reason given as to why it should be considered remarkable. TheLongTone (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete There are a few media mentions, but there's nothing particularly notable about this clinical trial. Examples of other clinical trial articles: Category:Clinical trials by type Natureium (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Published in a peer-review, notable journal, the International Journal of Cardiology. This Google Scholar search says that it has been cited in 100 other articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've got six publications that are cited in 100 other articles. None of them are remotely notable.   -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is insufficient coverage of this clinical trial for it to meet WP:GNG.  Many clinicals trials get mentioned a couple of times in the news, but that alone is not enough to establish notability.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article expands on a noteworthy aspect (see section 2.1) of the existing Wikipedia article about Coenzyme Q10, that aspect being the effect of Coenzyme Q10 on heart function. That section contains four lines and is far from comprehensive.  As such, it leaves the reader with an incomplete picture of the extent of human knowledge on the subject. If this article about Coenzyme Q10 and heart function in senior citizens is accepted, then it will be possible to link from Wikipedia’s Coenzyme Q10 article to this more comprehensive article. There is too much information here to put it all into section 2.1 of the Wikipedia Coenzyme Q10 article. The presentation of the article is neutral.  It is the reporting of facts without bias. The contents of the article are verifiable. All statements of fact are documented. From a bio-medical point of view, it is noteworthy. It is also noteworthy from the point of view of many senior citizens and many people with increased risk of heart disease. Morrillr (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is essentially an argument for expanding the Coenzyme Q10 article, not for keeping this one.TheLongTone (talk) 13:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

- The foremost reason for why this article is noteworthy and should remain on Wikipedia is that it addresses not only longevity but also health-related quality of life for senior citizens. People who encounter the term "KiSel-10" may want to look it up in Wikipedia to find a non-biased summary of the results from the study. Morrillr (talk) 09:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is one of thirteen a dozen clinical trials. No evidence that there is anything distinguishing this one from the dozens of trials run evey single month. --Randykitty (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2019 (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.