Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yakult

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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jytdog (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yakult

[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)

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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep. You're joking, right? This stuff is everywhere. Clearly notable product. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 - [8][9][10][11] (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 [12] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep, a household name that brand. We shouldn't be nominating such well-known companies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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) (strike unhelpful venting Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2018 (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.