Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitamin B3 complex

Vitamin B3 complex

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) SusanLesch (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vitamin B3 complex is not listed in the most reliable nutrition sources. (I checked the two top textbooks.) This article adds unnecessary complexity for the reader. SusanLesch (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Belongs somewhere. Springer is a decent publisher. Concept gets over 2,000 page views a month.[1]. Term has been mentioned since at least 1945 per [2]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify. 1945 where? For pageviews, B vitamins gets 2,176/d, Vitamin B3 complex 77/d, and Vitamin B-3 only gets 2. Vitamin B3 redirects to this article instead of Niacin 1,862/d. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make it clear that B vitamins is a much broader topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:23, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the understanding that the page will eventually be expanded. Vitamin B-3 is a redirect to Niacin, whereas there is an abundance of sourcing that indicates that Niacin and Nicotinamide together make up a discrete B3 group. (Vitamin B3, however, redirects to the page about the complex. That needs to be sorted out. Maybe the two redirects should be merged with the "complex" page, with a pagename that omits "complex".) What seems to me to be confusing for readers is that, if they come here simply looking for Vitamin B3, there are really two different pages that they would need to find out about. Regardless of terminology, it is clear from sources that there is a notable topic of "Vitamin B3" as a whole, and we should have a page that reflects that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I agree with you. What I can't support is the wrong article hogging the namespace "Vitamin B3". Then some kind soul inserted a hyphen in "Vitamin B-3". Vitamin B complex is a real thing. It's all eight B vitamins in one pill. Please keep this simple. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and what you say is very reasonable. It seems to me that the solution to the problem would be a merge/rename discussion, rather than deletion. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamine B3 represents less than half the page views for the article in question.[3] Happy to see the article renamed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merging this article back into what's now "niacin" sounds good to me. Then please rename the redirect "Vitamin B-3" to "Vitamin B3". I don't know your protocol but the way forward is probably in Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion or the following section. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the outcome here is to keep, I think there needs to be a more thorough discussion about the ultimate pagename. There should be consideration of the relationship between niacin and nicotinamide, and there should probably still be an overview page that includes both. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. "Vitamin B3 complex" does not appear in either Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease or in Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. From Google, it seems to be some kind of commercial skin product. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Tryptofish rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either to B vitamins or vitamin B3. If I understand correctly, term "vitamin B complex" actually refer to all B vitamins, as described, for example, here. My very best wishes (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 04:52, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SusanLesch: Now that you have supported a merge, as opposed to outright deletion, we have the possibility of going to the procedure at WP:AFD#Procedure for non-administrator close (nominator withdrawal). As of this time, no editor has endorsed "delete", so this remains an option so long as no one does endorse "delete". At this time, we do not have consensus as to what exact form any merge, rename, or redirect would take, so that needs to be a separate discussion, on the talk page of of one of the pages involved (with "see" notices on the others). If you would be willing to take those steps, that would be a good resolution of this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this open per Doc James who led me here. We already explained the intricacies here. Somebody else may wish to merge and then we can use Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion. If they don't I am happy to follow through with Tryptofish's suggestion. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then open it stays. But I'm going to insist that any final decision about merging go through Wikipedia:Proposed mergers per Wikipedia:Merging#Controversial mergers. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Because of their backlog if you want to start that or want me to start that please holler. Did you know that vitamin B3 is made from tryptophan? I expect you did. 😃 -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Actually, looking more closely at Proposed mergers, I agree that it's backlogged and I also realize that it wasn't what I meant. I was actually thinking of WP:MERGEPROP, with a local discussion. Woops. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me if I'm needed. Here's a quote from Oregon State's Linus Pauling Institute on niacin. "Dietary precursors of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), including nicotinic acid, nicotinamide, and nicotinamide riboside, are collectively referred to as niacin or vitamin B3." -SusanLesch (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 complex appears in zero other languages, Niacin in 62, and Vitamin B complex (redirect) and B vitamins in 53 languages. I look to the French for wisdom sometimes. They actually have an article on [Vitamin B3]. It says, sort of like Oregon State, "La vitamine B3 (C6H5NO2) est une vitamine hydrosoluble qui correspond à deux molécules : la niacine (acide nicotinique) et son amide, la nicotinamide, parfois appelée niacinamide." -SusanLesch (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best to simple move it to the term Vitamin B3. Found a ref for a third form made the move and added a number of more references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Thank you for trying but no deal. My !vote to "merge" was to merge your one sentence into "niacin". Also I object (again) to this borderline WP:FRINGE "complex" hogging the namespace "vitamin B3". Martha Stipanuk, your choice of new sources, received nothing but accolades from my professor. That may be why it hurts me so much to see her textbook used like you have done. "Vitamin B3 complex" does not appear in her book Biochemical, Physiological & Molecular Aspects of Human Nutrition but somehow you cited her four times for your four sentence article. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 is not simple niacin so that would be a bad merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what you say goes and (to pick a few) French, German, Spanish, and Italian are all wrong? And all three textbooks cited here are wrong? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We really should not try to settle merge or rename issues here. That will have to be the next discussion. For now the question is whether or not the consensus is to delete, or to keep pending that future discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, My very best wishes, and Doc James, I am happy to proceed with WP:MERGEPROP. Where do you want your local discussion? May I please suggest Talk:Niacin? Do you want me to close this AfD? I will have limited time after today. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2018 (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.