Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Yakult: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:21, 5 September 2018 editChiswick Chap (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers297,422 edits →Yakult: k, household name← Previous edit Revision as of 17:07, 5 September 2018 edit undoJytdog (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers187,951 edits →Yakult: unbelievable.Next edit →
Line 19: Line 19:
*'''Keep''' C'mon, Jytdog; if there is problematic, poorly-sourced content in an article like this, you should just blank it. AFDs like this are just going to be used by the "keepist" editors as a defense when they are ultimately brought to task at ANI for their own atrocious, counter-policy behaviour, and while this AFD doesn't stand a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of removing a currently-bad article from the mainspace, it does stand a fairly good chance of drawing the attention of bad editors who might try to revert any attempt to remove what problematic content is there. See the post-AFD histories of ] and ], both of which were also about Japanese topics that are "well-known" (or at least grossly misunderstood) to Anglo-American pop culture, for examples of this. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC) *'''Keep''' C'mon, Jytdog; if there is problematic, poorly-sourced content in an article like this, you should just blank it. AFDs like this are just going to be used by the "keepist" editors as a defense when they are ultimately brought to task at ANI for their own atrocious, counter-policy behaviour, and while this AFD doesn't stand a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of removing a currently-bad article from the mainspace, it does stand a fairly good chance of drawing the attention of bad editors who might try to revert any attempt to remove what problematic content is there. See the post-AFD histories of ] and ], both of which were also about Japanese topics that are "well-known" (or at least grossly misunderstood) to Anglo-American pop culture, for examples of this. ] (<small>]]</small>) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', a household name that brand. We shouldn't be nominating such well-known companies. ] (]) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC) *'''Keep''', a household name that brand. We shouldn't be nominating such well-known companies. ] (]) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
*the !votes here are very surprising to me. Remove the content sourced to spam, the content sourced to the primary medical sources and there is almost nothing left. This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in. OK I will pause and test that assumption by going and looking. And.... . Oh ] removed a couple of specks of shit. Goody for them. Shame on every one of you. ] (]) 17:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:07, 5 September 2018

Yakult

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Yakult (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a blatant advertisement cited mostly to the company websites, then to primary sources from the biomedical literature (which are invalid per WP:MEDRS but common as dirt among people who shill "health" products like this). There is one government source that is used in violation of the WP:SYN policy to talk about sugar content. I tagged it for speedy and that was stripped. This should not be polluting mainspace - it serves the company, not people trying to learn. Please shovel this dogshit off our sidewalk so innocent people don't step in it. Jytdog (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Without judging the state of the article as-is, it does look like there may be some other sources out there. Here's one from Express criticizing probiotic drinks, with much of the attention directed at Yakult; here's another one from Today talking about the product getting a sales boost from a recent TV series, and a similar one from news.com.au. Here's Science Daily reporting a study from World Journal of Gastroenterology, but I am not familiar with WP:MEDRS to know if that is acceptable. PohranicniStraze (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a major brand and there are numerous more sources out there for it. Insofar as it makes health claims, that's just like numerous other food and drink brands – "Guinness is good for you"; Special K is "full of goodness"; "A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play"; "Red Bull gives you wings", &c. I myself recently started an article about quite a lethal concoction which was sold as a big business for many years – Godfrey's Cordial. We should have articles about all of these as, otherwise, readers will mainly be left with the real adverts. Andrew D. (talk) 06:30, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep ("snow"): This is a clearly notable product, and without looking very carefully, the article certainly does not look like spamvertising. (Disclaimer: my father-in-law worked for them.) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep I found significant coverage of the company in the New York Times, and Fortune, and in Milk: Beyond the Dairy: Proceedings of the Oxford Symposium on Food and Cookery 1999, and in Advanced Dairy Chemistry Volume 3. This is a large multinational company with a long history, and this encyclopedia ought to have a policy compliant article about it. Just remove the promotional content and anything that violates MEDRS. Cullen Let's discuss it 07:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment The issue obviously isn't notability for company or product, as even the most casual English-language search reveals a popular product and a company with a colorful history: . Jytdog rightly points out that the issue is WP:PROMO. Would taking out the entire "Nutritional Value" section, the sentences on cosmetics and chemotherapy, and the "marketed in different sizes" paragraph address the main promotional concern, and leave a workable article to fill out with easily-located WP:RS-sourced information about the subject? Bakazaka (talk) 07:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep but tag as promotional or rewrite. I agree with Bakazaka, the company/product passes WP:NORG, it is just not neutral. That can be fixed with tags, no need for nuking. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. You're joking, right? This stuff is everywhere. Clearly notable product. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable as can be seen by the number of sources on the company, ranging from its product, reference in popular culture, to scientific research - just a few here - (I even know people whose scientific research in a top academic institution was funded by the company, and their research wasn't about the company's products but basic science). Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Any concerns about promotion can be fixed, and there are also review articles on such product in scientific journals if there is a need to fix any claims about its health benefit. Hzh (talk) 10:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep C'mon, Jytdog; if there is problematic, poorly-sourced content in an article like this, you should just blank it. AFDs like this are just going to be used by the "keepist" editors as a defense when they are ultimately brought to task at ANI for their own atrocious, counter-policy behaviour, and while this AFD doesn't stand a chance of accomplishing its stated goal of removing a currently-bad article from the mainspace, it does stand a fairly good chance of drawing the attention of bad editors who might try to revert any attempt to remove what problematic content is there. See the post-AFD histories of Korean influence on Japanese culture and Mottainai, both of which were also about Japanese topics that are "well-known" (or at least grossly misunderstood) to Anglo-American pop culture, for examples of this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep, a household name that brand. We shouldn't be nominating such well-known companies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • the !votes here are very surprising to me. Remove the content sourced to spam, the content sourced to the primary medical sources and there is almost nothing left. This is a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk. If people want to write a real article on this, please do so. But I bet not a single one of the !voters here will clean up this dogshit. Nope, you will give your !vote and leave the shit here for other people to step in. OK I will pause and test that assumption by going and looking. And.... yep. Oh User:Chiswick Chap removed a couple of specks of shit. Goody for them. Shame on every one of you. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Categories: