Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitamin A2


 * 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 keep. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Vitamin A2

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Original research, insufficient secondary sources. WP:WITHDRAWN I'm withdrawing my nomination. Wow, this is embarrassing—shouldn't have nominated this in the first place. I've now looked deeper into A2, and, while at first glance this article had the same issues as Vitamin A5, Vitamin A2 is well-supported by other sources not in the current article. rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article meets several criteria for deletion, WP:DEL-REASON: 1) it is an hypothesis evolved from speculation for which there is little evidence of subtype A2 existence, remaining an unverified mechanism, WP:CRYSTAL, 2) it is a non-notable concept in the general vitamin A literature, as no independent reviews discuss a vitamin A2 subtype, failing WP:N, 3) it contains only primary research at the lowest quality of evidence for biological mechanisms, failing WP:SCIASSESS and WP:MEDASSESS, and 4) it has had no substantive edits since 2019, indicating it is a stale topic in vitamin A science. Zefr (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, meets WP:GNG due to being discussed in multiple reliable secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully,, all those sources fail current evidence with no reviews within the past 5 years, indicating this topic is not evolving in the vitamin A community. Zefr (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not required to show notability - but there are plenty of sources from the last five years on Google Scholar. SailingInABathTub (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Probably could use a little cleanup, but deletion is not cleanup. The compound in the infobox is known as Vitamin A2. The article might be better being moved to Dehydroretinol, but that's a separate issue. Certainly passes WP:GNG; add citations to improve WP:VERIFY. As last resort, a blank and redirect to Dehydroretinal would be an appropriate alternative to deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 7 November 2021 (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.