Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svetol


 * 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   redirect to Green coffee extract. If anyone would like to merge content from this article, it can be accessed from the article's edit history. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 23:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Svetol

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are a lot of sources presented but it is not certain that any of them are reliable sources. Wikipedia's notability criteria are very low, and all we need are 2-3 good sources. If this article is to be kept, could someone present the 2-3 best sources so that we can establish notability? There are debates on the talk page about nuance of sources, but talks about details should happen after notability is established.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  13:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  14:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  14:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete a propriety product without much following, fails WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to green coffee extract Doc James'''  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 08:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to Redirect, see below) Spam for a commercial brand of green coffee extract. The journal references in the article do not mention Svetol by name; the rest of the references range from non-reliable sources to snake-oil hype for an unproven weight loss supplement. Doc James, I respect your proposal for a merge/redirect (which preceded this AfD nomination), and maybe some of the general references could be transferred to the target article before deletion, but I don't want to see a redirect from this non-notable commercial spam. --MelanieN (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This review mention that it is a brand name  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And that's all it does. The review is not ABOUT Svetol and neither are any of the research articles. --MelanieN (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge, and then redirect. The content of the article fits well in green coffee extract and there is no need for a separate article.  Standard practice is to not have articles for brand name drug formulations and to keep the content at articles titled by the active ingredient (with a few exceptions for clearly independently notable brands which have a significant history, cultural impact, etc.)  Deli nk (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * redirect/Merge sourced info, where appropriate, to green coffee extract. To respond to 's valid concern, I also support the redirect, as redirects are cheap, and readers are almost certain to read the term "Svetol" somewhere on product packaging, decide to type it into the search bar, and in the case that it does redirect them to green coffee extract, they should be able find information about the papers on the efficacy (or lack thereof) and other pharmacological data on related products, rather than any commercial spam. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You've convinced me. Changing my opinion to Redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete edit history then Redirect. This is obviously a non-notable article. If anything is worth merging it can be done now rather than waiting for this discussion to be over. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect as User:AdventurousSquirrel said. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect A reasonable thorough search of academic literature makes it clear that there's not sufficient notability for a separate article. That said it doesn't look like there's a lot worth merging. SPACKlick (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2014 (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.