Talk:Green coffee extract

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Health and fitness, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of health and physical fitness related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Health and fitnessWikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitnessTemplate:WikiProject Health and fitnessHealth and fitness articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dietary Supplements Low‑importance

	Green coffee extract is part of WikiProject Dietary Supplements, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to dietary supplements. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Dietary SupplementsWikipedia:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsTemplate:WikiProject Dietary SupplementsDietary supplement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brand names

Ref says "Extracted GCE is marketed as a weight loss supplement under a variety of brand names as a weight loss supplement such as “Coffee Slender”, and “Svetol”." [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it says, but it seems possibly misleading. CoffeeSlender apparently has three products [2]: (1) CoffeeSlender Coffee is a coffee drink that contains freeze-dried coffee and has Svetol (a specific proprietary brand of green coffee extract) as an active ingredient. (2) CoffeeSlender Tablets looks like it might be pure Svetol but I can't tell -- the full ingredients don't seem to be listed on the site. (3) CoffeeSlender Mints and Coffeeslender Chewing Gum probably contain Svetol. The case may well be that Svetol has simply allowed the company to market Svetol as CoffeeSlender. I think another important point not mentioned in that summary of clinical studies is that there are dozens of brands of green coffee extract available, many of them knockoffs and copycats and unstudied (hence the FTC going after that upstart Florida copycat scammer). Softlavender (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Svetol here

Per this ref [3] Svetol is a brand name of "green coffee extract". Per what we do elsewhere brand names are typically merged to generic names except in a few rare exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - for above reasons Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment That is true for pharma, but not generally, see eg Category:Brand name food products and Category:Brand name diet products. but there is an awful lot of overlap here. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So the question is, is this a notable brand name like Tylenol? I would say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The Svetol article is a magnet for promotional claims not substantiated by MEDRS-compliant sources. Apart from the company history and the detailed composition of Svetol (which are now present in their own section in this article), there's nothing that should be in Svetol that would not be covered in Green coffee extract anyway. --RexxS (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Svetol is not the brand name of green coffee extract, and green coffee extract comes in many forms that differ very widely from each other in a variety of parameters. There are hundreds of brands of green coffee extract; Amazon alone lists several hundred [4]. The topics are therefore discrete subjects warranting their own articles. In addition, I think the numerous clinical studies on Svetol (which is apparently unique in its specific chlorogenic acids isomer profile and the specific subspecies of coffee it is extracted from, and its standardization to 45% chlorogenic acids) confers sufficient notability and distinctness for a separate article, in addition to its position as the leading brand. Also, the article on green coffee extract is only two days old and is still virtually a stub in my opinion. Green coffee extract has a much more extensive history and much more variety and variation than is currently listed in the article; it has been used since the 1950s for bronchial conditions, and has recently been studied for its possible applications to conditions including Alzheimers and diabetes, etc. There is so much that can and should be added to the green coffee extract article that I believe merging the two articles would possibly make it too long and clunky in the end. I'd also like to note that the Svetol article has been cut by 60% in the past few hours. I don't personally agree with the cuts (many of them clinical studies indexed in PubMed) and think the Svetol article should stand as it was originally when the Merge tag was placed on it: [5], for the duration of the Merge discussion. Softlavender (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Retaining a separate article seems to be principally an outlet for non-WP:MEDRS-compliant promotional material. Softlavender – presumably inadvertantly – highlights this problem with his link to the pre-merge-discussion version of the Svetol article. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All of my reading around the subject indicates that it is a brand name for GCE. Trying to qualify it as being different to other brand names is being used as an excuse to preclude criticism (constant deletion of content under the guise of 'if it isn't about Svetol, it doesn't belong here'). Other than being contentiously close to WP:ARTSPAM, the creator of the article is displaying signs of WP:OWN with regards to the content. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger I'm not a fan of stubs but I think the Svetol article has enough reliable sources that it warrants its own article per WP:Product. It also appears to be a topic getting a lot of attention and its coverage will increase over time. However, if there is a consensus is to merge the article please follow the []WP:MERGE]] guideline and move the content and don't use it as an excuse to blank the page.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lack of MEDRS sources and secondary sources in general. QuackGuru (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In two minds. If everyone here has it on their watchlist, it's unlikely to turn back into a press release. Conversely, as the product attracts more scientific and serious press scrutiny, it might serve our readers well to keep them up-to-date with any shenanigans by the manufacturers and marketers. To be frank, if I were one of those I'd be delighted to have Svetol merged or deleted at this point. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that keeping an article 'just in case' is WP:CRYSTAL. There's no difficulty in creating an article in the event of its suddenly being discovered to be an unexpected cure for malaria, or a terrible fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I actually don't have Svetol on my watchlist, and I'd rather not have to put it there. Doubling the number of places that we're going to have to deal with crappy, fringy, promotional cheerleading on the off-chance that we'll get to 'gotcha' some shysters doesn't feel like a good return on the investment of our volunteers' effort. (And note that if Svetol is a major source of GCE, it is reasonable that particularly noteworthy (mis)conduct on their part can properly be covered here.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Svetol article should be deleted, and I have said so at the AfD. It is simply spam for one brand of green coffee extract, and I don't believe it deserves a redirect. But failing that, a merge would be acceptable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]