"Vitamin B₃, also known as vitamin B₃ complex, is vitamin that includes three forms nicotinamide (niacinamide), niacin (nicotinic acid), and nicotinamide riboside.^[1][2][3]"

• Ref 1 says "Niacin and nicotinamide, respectively, make up the vitamin B3 complex"
• Ref 2 says "Niacin or nicotinamate, together with its amide form nicotinamide, defines the group of vitamin B3 complex"
• Ref 3 says "Three forms of vitamin B3" and shows Nicotinamide, Nicotinic acid, and nicotinamide riboside.

The last one was just found in 2004 which is why less sources mention it.

Do the refs support this content? Rfc extended on behalf of SusanLesch 16:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC) originally raised by Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Do the refs support this content: vitamin B3 complex and three vitamers (1, 2, 3)? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support the refs being sufficient for the text in question[edit]

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't understand, and the RfC does not explain, what aspect of the statement is thought to be in doubt. However the wording and punctuation could be improved: "Vitamin B₃, also known as the vitamin B₃ complex, is a vitamin that includes three vitamers: nicotinamide (niacinamide), niacin (nicotinic acid), and nicotinamide riboside." Maproom (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maproom: RFC clarified above. Does that help? -SusanLesch (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I now suspect the problem is that it may not be thought obvious, indeed may be regarded as original research, that if nicotinic acid is a vitamer, then so is any of its soluble salts, such as nicotinamide and "nicotinamide roboside" (I suspect the source really says "nicotinamide riboside"). If that really is what the RfC is about, I stand by my support !vote. Maproom (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose refs being sufficient for the text in question[edit]

• Oppose. The definition of WP:SYNTH. The only reference for all three vitamers, Stipanuk does not mention the concept "vitamin B3 complex". -SusanLesch (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not even supported in the quoted sentences? Would propose to remove mention of "B3 complex" in article. --Treetear (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Aside from the wp:synth issue, the also known as vitamin B3 complex statement is not supported by any of the sources. In the discussion section, someone mentioned that a Google scholar search for "vitamin B3 complex" yields 21 results; which may sound impressive at first, until you realize that adding the term complex to any vitamin would give you similar results (37 for "Vitamin B1 complex" and 530 results for "Vitamin B2 complex"). Clearly, the term complex is taken out of context and the second ref illustrates this perfectly. On page 364, it says Niacin or nicotinamate, together with its amide form nicotinamide, defines the group of vitamin B3 complex, but there is no mention of the term complex on pages 38-39 where Vitamin B3 (niacin) is described in detail. I suggest merging this article into Niacin. M.Bitton (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose using the text in the lead sentence. There's a good bit of synthesis involved in putting those three sources together to support the use of the term "B3 Complex", and furthermore, it's very much a marketing term, relying on confusion with "Vitamin B complex". Vitamin B complex refers to a mixture of B vitamins, all of which are independently metabolically relevant, so it makes sense to supplement them in a mixture, while supplementing with a mixture of the vitamers of B3 has no benefit over using a single one. I'd be happy with explaining the term in the body text of the article if it ever grows beyond a stub, but it's in no way a notable or relevant name for the vitamin to the extent that it should be given as a synonym in the lead sentence. As the article stands at the moment, I'm in favour of merging it to niacin. --Slashme (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• Since 2004, Stipanuk and Caudill have had 14 years and at least two editions to add "vitamin B3 complex" to their textbook. They did not, nor did the authors of Modern Nutrition in Health and Disease and Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. "B complex" is a real pill containing all 8 B vitamins. B3 complex seems to be a commercial skin product, is borderline WP:FRINGE, and is just someone's idea of a fancy, marketable name. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This ref was published in 2010 by Springer[3]

Vitamin B3 complex is an older and less commonly used name sure.[4] But it is still used and has been for many many decades. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Textbooks diligently give archaic names so we can still read old manuscripts. Sorry, this name is made up. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment At first I was inclined to support, especially as it is a storm in teacup topic. However, I did some hasty checking and the use of the term "complex" is doubtfully helpful at best, differing as it does from "B-complex", which is a set of distinct vitamins of distinct functions. The "Vitamin B3 complex" is term of limited functional or clinical significance, mainly historical rather than physiological, and does not seem to be in current medical usage. Given that the article is so short, it would be better to omit the term from the definition, and re-word the statement to mention that "Vitamin B3 complex" has been used loosely in the past, but is not in current in medical or biochemical practice. I even would be inclined to omit that, but some users with deficient biochemical knowledge might want to know what this "Vitamin B3 complex" thing was all about if they read it somewhere else. JonRichfield (talk) 07:25, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:JonRichfield would be happy with a sentence saying that "The term "vitamin B3 complex" has also been used for this group of compounds." And removing vitamin B3 complex from the first sentence.
  • Google scholar picks up 21 results for the term.[5] Some of them recent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other reviews"A part of the vitamin B3 complex, along with nicotinic acid, nicotinamide is rapidly metabolized to N-amide adenine dinucleotide (NAD)."

This one from 2018 "Niacin and nicotinamide are two of the various forms of the vitamin B3 complex."Nattagh-Eshtivani, Elyas; Sani, Mahmood Alizadeh; Dahri, Monireh; Ghalichi, Faezeh; Ghavami, Abed; Arjang, Pishva; Tarighat-Esfanjani, Ali (June 2018). "The role of nutrients in the pathogenesis and treatment of migraine headaches: Review". Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy. 102: 317–325. doi:10.1016/j.biopha.2018.03.059.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same as the article refs, your 2018 ref only claims two vitamers. Have you tried your Google Ngram output? I propose we close this RfC with JonRichfield's solution. @Doc James: can you please write out a draft of your adjustments to the following?

• First sentence:

Vitamin B₃ is a vitamin family of three vitamers that includes nicotinamide (niacinamide), niacin (nicotinic acid), and nicotinamide riboside.

• Last sentence:

Loosely used in the past, the expression vitamin B3 complex is generally not in medical or biochemical use.

• Or alt-last sentence:

The expression vitamin B3 complex was loosely used in the past.

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What ref supports that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot, in my opinion this article ought to be merged into niacin. Any source is fine if it supports whatever it is you want to say. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• (invited b y RFC bot) , is vitamin that includes three forms -- Please clarify the meaning of the word "includes". Is Vitamin B3 is a mixture of these three forms? If not, then IMO a less ambiguous statement would be "...that exists in 3 forms" or something like that. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - So I don't know much about vitamins, but I do take a supplement each day, and I enjoyed being asked by the bot to do an rfc for this article because it gave me an excuse to find out more about vitamins. After looking at several articles, including those on wikipedia, I have to say that this stub has no business being on its own and should be moved as a new section under Niacin with searches for "vitamin B3" redirecting to that section. I base this on many factors, including the articles on Niacin, vitamins, and B vitamins (the B3 in the list isn't even wiki-linked to this page!). (No, normally I wouldn't use wiki articles as source materials, but that's not what we're doing here). The B Vitamin article, in the first paragraph, specifically refers to B3 = Niacin. The World Heath Organization paper used as a reference in this article^[1] states that the vitamin is NAD or NADP, which Niacin is the precursor of. Lastly, my Centrum Silver bottle lists Vitamins A, C, D, and E, and B6 and B12, but does not list B3, it says, instead, Niacin (in fact, 3 out of the 5 supplements listed here^[2] Say Niacin instead of B3, one says B3 (Niacin) and one pretty much lists flowers (remind me never to take Alive! multi-vitamins. In summation, I recommend the deletion of vitamin B3 and vitamin B3 complex and a new section under Niacin that reads:

Vitamin B3[edit]

Niacin has sometimes appeared historically as vitamin B3 and is considered the 3rd of eight B vitamins in vitamin B complex.

- StarHOG (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 refers to a number of chemicals of which niacin is one. Yes the terminology is somewhat confusing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and admitting I'm no chemist or how to really say this, but it does seem that all three chemicals are compounds of, or spring from, Niacin. I looked at those three chemicals in formulating what I thought would be a good explanation of B3, but it didn't seem to add anything that isn't covered under the Niacin article itself, which this should be becoming a part of. Therefore the further explanation of B3 and its composition is redundant. IMO. StarHOG (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 is a group of vitamers of which niacin is one. Why would we merge to niacin instead of nicotinamide? Unless we merge all three to "vitamin B3" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe they should. What I do know is that this article had a request for RFC and I, as a neutral editor, have weighed-in. I'd like to see other editors do the same. I don't want to get into a deep discussion with User:Doc James because they are heavily immersed in the editing of all the articles named here. StarHOG (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well RfC are not votes, they are discussions. Yes this is one of the around 20,000 articles I am "heavily immersed in editing" :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin B3 is a group of vitamers of which niacin is one. Why would we merge to niacin instead of nicotinamide?. Because that's what most RS do. It's as simple as that. That said, there's nothing stopping us from explaining why (by creating an etymology section, for instance). M.Bitton (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]