Talk:Young Living/Archives/2017

Young Living Therapeutic Grade
Can we discuss the "Therapeutic Grade" claims made on Young Living essential oils? According to the YL website, they make a claim that their oils are Therapeutic Grade. The FDA and any other governing body does not recognize this as a real grading method. According to these sources [1] [2] the term "Therapeutic Grade" is a made up marketing trick. I suggest we add some language that clarifies this since Young Living prints "Therapeutic Grade" on the front label of each essential oil bottle they sell. Thanks. --H McCringleberry (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:09, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I recommend we don't address this. Their information can't be trusted. This company is well-known for quackery. Any discussion about their products is not encyclopedic per WP:PROMO. --Zefr (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for now. It does indeed appear that "Therapeutic Grade" is marketing nonsense. If it were used in the article it would likely have to be removed. Since it's not currently used in this article, mentioning it would require reliable, independent sources specifically linking it to Young Living.
 * I don't know if the National Association of Holistic Aromatherapy is a reliable source, but that would have to be determined before citing them. Likewise, Aromaweb appears to be a blog source, which is of limited use. It's commendable that the author calls on the site's advertisers to stop using the term "grade", but that's not enough to make this reliable by Wikipedia's standards.
 * While I have no doubt that Young Living coined the phrase, neither of those other sources actually call-out Young Living by name (for some reason). We need to be cautious of original research, specifically synthesis of sources. Without a reliable, independent source specifically linking Young Living to this misleading phrase, it's difficult to add to the article in a neutral way. Grayfell (talk) 20:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it has already been to AfD once, and been kept - which unless I've misunderstood policy makes it ineligible for speedy deletion under CSD A7. There may well be good arguments for deletion (I'd probably !vote for it myself if another AfD was started), but summary deletion of an article in such circumstances would seem inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)