Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celadrin (joint cream)

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 no consensus. After much-extended time for discussion, there is a clear absence of consensus for deletion. Relisting appears to be of no value, as the discussion has been dormant for over a week, despite a first relisting (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 ^{Need any help?} 23:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Celadrin (joint cream)

[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)

The evidence for this U.S. marketed topical product is limited to one clinical trial which was conducted without a placebo control, i.e., not meeting WP:MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC) [CORRECTION: A second trial, placebo controlled, published. See PMIDs, below.] David notMD (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean, it exists, I get hits from Amazon, Costco, selling the stuff. It's hardly worth an article, just a natural health product that may or may not do anything. Oaktree b (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are not enough sources to qualify this article for wiki notability guidelines. Citterz (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC) striking confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For transparency, I reduced the length of the article by more than 1/3 before nominating it for deletion. My reasons were primarily that the evidence cited for health statements did not meet WP:MEDRS. I did not norify the creating editor because that account has not been active since 2015. David notMD (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like the Chicago Tribune ran a syndicated review article that covers the cream (1). A lot of other hits on Google News from random homeopathy and natural foods magazines, as well as garbage home-remedy stories from The Sun and the Daily Mail, which taken together might constitute notability? Some business trade updates about the product development, as well. I doubt the stuff does anything different from lotion, but I do think it may be notable enough for an article. Thoughts, User:David notMD? Suriname0 (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If I read that Chi Times article correctly, that was about Celadrin as an oral product, not a topical. The topical product clearly exists (see https://www.drugs.com/otc/120580/celadrin-joint-and-muscle-pain-relieving.html) the question is whether it is notable, given that there is no supporting science that meets WP:MEDRS. Even at Drugs.com, the description states that the only active ingredient is 1.25% menthol. David notMD (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it definitely fails WP:MEDRS. My question is does it succeed for WP:PRODUCT or WP:ORG? I suspect one COULD write an article about Celadrin as a product, or perhaps more productively on Pharmachem Laboratories, LLC. I think, however, that it's not worth saving the four sentences that do exist for that reason, so I'm fine with deletion. Suriname0 (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Celadrin is a registered trademark owned by Imagenetix, Inc. It licenses "Celadrin" to several dietary supplement companies for use in topical products (with menthol) and as an oral products (without menthol). David notMD (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Far from my area of expertise, but seems to be covered in at least one academic study: [1]. GScholar also reports [2] but I am not sure if it is reliable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The first is an in vitro study, hence no relevance to article about a topical product. The second is a mention of one clinical trial that was published in two journal articles not currently cited in the Wikipedia article: PMID 15705022 and PMID 15055305. Individual clinical trial reports are not WP:MEDRS. The question remains - can a product be notable if the supporting science does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for citations. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. mention in a few studies is very far from notability, the only reason to keep it would be to counter its claims of effectiveness. --hroest 19:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In reply to the "weak delete," there are no published clinical trials that it does not work. (There may have been such trials the researchers chose to not submit for publication.) Rather, there are two trials, published as three articles, that it does work, i.e., relieves osteoarthritis pain. These publications do not reach MEDRS - including the one that is currently referenced in the article. The question is notability in the absence of valid science. Velvet antler is an example of a dietary supplement that is clearly notable despite lack of any evidence that it has a benefit. David notMD (talk) 10:49, 15 April 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.