Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olcenic


 * 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. Michig (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Olcenic

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Contested prod. shoy (reactions) 15:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

(talkjbensous) 15:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC) Do Not Delete. This page should not be deleted. It is a combination of dietary components whose properties are directly related to scientific studies and will be used on its own as a referential term to the specific combination in scientific papers, studies and dietary supplements. It is no different than your inclusion of such terms as Aspartame (which itself breaks down into various components - but you allow this as a "term" used to describe the combination of properties). I will work on getting more information about it to add to the page.
 * Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This article makes medical claims and has only a single source, an article published in Food and Nutritional Sciences, which is not a reliable source for medical claims. This journal is published by a very dubious company, Scientific Research Publishing. Any comparison to Aspartame is absurd, since that substance has been widely studied by scientists for decades, and of the 88 sources in that article, a large percentage are to high quality scientific sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:23, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The single source for this article about a trademarked supplement is a primary one, where researchers report some biomarkers in 20 individuals who took a supplement, comparing these results against other findings reported in the literature. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:05, 20 August 2016 (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.