Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitamin A5

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin A5

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough independent reliable sources mention Vitamin A5, it is almost unheard of apart from the same group of researchers who have published on it. On the article are 10 references, of these 10 the author Rühl R appears in 9. This is some kind of conflict of interest. An experienced user has also raised these concerns at the conflict of interest board [1]. We must assume good faith but the user who created this article only appears to be using Wikipedia to promote papers written by Rühl R. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After raising a critique on the vitamin A5 talk page, and using WP:PROD, I supported deletion of this article on 26 Oct, but PROD was reverted by the article creator (Wham2019, who claims to be a "new" editor, but began editing in April 2019) without adequate responses to concerns about 1) use only of primary research at the lowest quality of evidence for biological mechanisms, WP:SCIASSESS and WP:MEDASSESS, 2) sources mainly from one research group (within which Wham2019 appears to be a member, indicating an undisclosed WP:COI), 3) content based only on speculation, making it an untested concept that has no notability in vitamin A science, WP:N, 4) absence of rigorous independent review(s) acknowledging the existence of vitamin A2-5 subtypes, and 5) exaggerated unproven claims of biological activity and anti-disease effects, reverted in this edit. The concept of vitamin A subtypes has been strongly advocated by Wham2019 on the vitamin A talk page, but was resisted by an experienced medical editor, and no supportive contributions about subtypes have appeared in the vitamin A article. More primary research was added to the vitamin A5 article today by Wham2019, apparently triggering this deletion proposal and renewing the COI concerns. The vitamin A5 concept and article appear to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for establishing credibility and verification of an idea not adopted by the vitamin A research community. The article should be deleted (as should vitamin A2 for the same reasons). Zefr (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A dozen references all from the same people is a red flag. It’s a sign of either an unconventional view that hasn’t gained any traction, or of dubious selection of sources by the current article’s editors. Or, as may well be the case here, both. If the topic has merit, other groups will get interested and more diverse support for the idea will emerge. And I hope to be right when I say that the article here is not the best way to get exposure in the relevant circles. Karl Oblique (talk) 02:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This smells of WP:NOR by proxy with some WP:COI. The compounds exist, but the name and seeming importance of them has not been demonstrated and would not be regarded because of it. Other reasonings stated by others also addresses additional concerns. --Tautomers_{(T C)} 19:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need reliable secondary resources that confirm that "A5" is an accepted term. -- rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 19:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete When you do a before search, even in academic archives its the Ruhl, Krężel names that keep coming up in the results. A single group means NPOV and that is a worry. When I looked at it originally, planning to review it, I couldn't determine if it genuine. It looked suspect but there is no reall guidance on it. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.