Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niacin

Niacin[edit]

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Niacin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Newly created disambiguation page based on dodgy splits and renaming. As the two main "stuffs" are both Vitamin B3, why were they split and renamed at all? This serves no purpose. See prior discussion at User_talk:Artoria2e5#Niacin_split_revertedThe Banner talk 16:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Until August 24, 2022 there had been "Niacin" (a Good article) and "Vitamin B3" (a small article). Earlier, Artoria2e5 had proposed a split of Niacin on the Talk page and I, as the person who had raised Niacin to GA, opposed. On August 24, Artoria2e5 went ahead with the split, renaming the former "Niacin (substance)" and the latter "Niacin (nutrient)" and moving ~30,000 bytes of content from the former to the latter. I reverted the deletion of content from the former but left the latter, with the added content, intact. In my opinion. Niacin (substance) should revert to "Niacin", Niacin (nutrient) should revert to "Vitamin B3" and this disambiguation page should be deleted. This action would leave "Vitamin B3" as a separate article, with some content duplicated at "Niacin", but no great harm. An alternative that would take some editing work would be to delete "Vitamin B3", first moving useful content and references to "Niacin", and have a redirect for those who search on "Vitamin B3". David notMD (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Some arguments for the split is linked above by The Banner. The big issue here is that "niacin" is currently the common name for both the nutritional entity with multiple vitamers and the common name for nicotinic acid, the blush-inducing vitamer/drug. The nutritional use is, IMO, the main use, for which Vitamin B3 cannot be treated as a common name. (For other nutrient articles involving multiple vitamers, see Vitamin B6, Vitamin D, and Vitamin E. Folate is a bit of outlier here in that it also describes both concepts merged under the same heading, but it has enough written under "Definition" for clarity -- and the pharmacological action isn't as distinct.) My procedures were questionable, but I still believe that it follows the more in-depth consensus of Talk:Niacin_(substance)#Merger_proposal and the idea that no one in particular owns the article. --Artoria2e5 🌉 00:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Artoria2e5 🌉 00:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't support the current naming as it asks the reader to make the rather academic distinction between substance and nutrient. A reversal of the actions taken or some other solution would be preferable. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move "niacin (substance)" to "nicotinic acid". I am far more familiar with the concept of "niacin" as a vitamin group and "nicotinic acid" as its own specific chemical within the niacin group (mostly in the context of AchRs), and actually have been irritated by the redirect to "niacin" in the past. Everything that is actually called niacin in other articles should link directly to the niacin (in the vitamin sense) page, and everything that refers to a specific vitamer should link to its own page. If editors are using "niacin" in article text to refer to NA without realizing the ambiguity, that can be dealt with case-by-case. I can't imagine people searching for "nicotinic acid" are actually looking for "niacin" (vitamin) without knowing the latter as the more appropriate search term, but if they are they can just follow the link to that page from "nicotinic acid". Likewise, I don't think anyone searching for "niacin" would be surprised or confused to end up on the vitamin page, and even if they were looking for "nicotinic acid" specifically it's linked right there in the lead sentence (or should be). Therefore, there is no need to have a DAB, much less one necessitating weird, ambiguous parenthetical titles, when the distinction is already straightforward and better-contextualized in the first sentence of the niacin article. JoelleJay (talk) 03:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Niacin" should still be a standalone page (covering the vitamin), with "niacin (substance)" moved to "nicotinic acid". So the page "niacin" shouldn't be deleted, but the DAB should also not exist. JoelleJay (talk) 01:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Move Niacin (substance)toNiacin (wrong place to discuss moves, I know, but that's what I think should happen instead). According to Pageviews, it seems like the substance is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Niacin (nutrient) was a standalone article before parts of the nutrient were copied the same day as the DAB was created. It seems like the substance was moved but not showing in the logs, which explains why so many pages link to the DAB page. SWinxy (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. AFD is a blunt tool and not a good platform to discuss editing decisions. What, among the limited options here, would you like to see done with this specific page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep and open a discussion at one of the various Niacins' talk pages. As Liz says, this is simply not the place for in-depth discussion on how to organize pages. Ovinus (talk) 23:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep As Liz notes, this is turning into a move discussion rather than an AFD. Interested parties should discuss this further on the talk page. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the new move-discussion, the contested edits should be reverted to have a clear start-situation. The Banner talk 08:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That can also be rectified elsewhere. Ovinus (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2022 (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.