The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The entirety of this article constitutes original research. Every claim made about "Tripeptide-37" itself is unreferenced. Examples:
All the statements that are referenced refer to well establish science, but do not relate directly to "Tripeptide-37". "Tripeptide-37" is not mentioned at all in any of the cited references. In fact, a search of the chemical literature for this compound (CAS#1247010-50-9) turns up only a single reference in a Japanese patent ("Method for extracting rule showing functional peptide, functional peptide design method and preparation method, polypeptide or polypeptide-containing composition evaluation method, and functional peptides." Honda, Hiroyuki et. al. JP 2010222300 ) which is unrelated to the topic of this article.
A web search for "Tripeptide-37" turns up very little, and most of what is found refers to what appear to be chemical derivatives of "Tripeptide-37" (palmitoyl tripeptide-37, elaidoyl tripeptide-37, etc.) There doesn't appear to be anything from a reliable source upon which to build an acceptable article.
Although "Tripeptide-37" no doubt exists as some cosmetics ingredient, all the content about it currently in Tripeptide-37 is completely unverifiable and the article is original research, violating Wikipedia policy. This article is basically an advertisement for a product packaged with a veneer of science to make it appear more substantial than what it really is. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]