Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FLO Vitamins


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While there were a fair amount of eloquent (LLMoquent?) comments in favor of keeping the article, none of them were the slightest bit based in actual policy. signed,Rosguill talk 02:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

FLO Vitamins

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not seeing any truly independent coverage for this product. Sourced to interviews, advertorials and PR Newswire pieces. KH-1 (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Products. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete very PROMO. Sources I find are all PR, except for this interview/advertorial with the founder, which is not much. Oaktree b (talk) 02:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've researched and consider it can be kept per the general notability as it is the world’s first-ever PMS gummy vitamin per Fortune. Additionally, both the innovative approach in developing this vitamin and its subsequent influence on the dietary supplement market contribute to its significance, thereby justifying its presence as an article on Wikipedia. --BoraVoro (talk) 06:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We need sources that discuss this, otherwise this is unsourced product talk. Oaktree b (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep as there is a high public interest—the product was used by public figures like Haley Lu Richardson, Molly Sims, Charlotte Mckinney and was recognized by obstetrics and gynaecology medical experts . As the women's health stuff it looks significant enough.Rodgers V (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Those don't contribute to notability. We need discussion is scientific journals if it has been so studied. Oaktree b (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hmmm... A good few are interviews, but those focus more on Bitton and the company rather than this product. There were also two press releases, and those are primary sources. I guess Beauty Independent appears to be reliable, as the strongest, but a high bar is required for medical claims. SWinxy (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep The article written from a neutral point of view, representing proportionately, and without bias. All of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The vitamins have significant interest to the public. In particular, this is presented in this and this articles. Of course, the article still needs to be improved and finalized. But at this stage, it looks good enough to be left for improvement. --Loewstisch (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks to me very much like what AI would write, rather than a human editor. Can someone put this through one of those checker thingies? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I have my doubts about the Beauty Independent. The article is categorised as a "Brand Report" which is essentially an advertorial-style piece. While the content is unique, the title/angle suggests that it's based on the company's press release. The Bloomberg piece only mentions the product in passing: "O Positiv offers a strawberry gummy with chasteberry, the herb dong quai, vitamin B6, and lemon balm ($27) for PMS-related cramps, acne, and mood swings." -KH-1 (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It does seem PR-ish, almost like and advertorial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. All the sources in the article are as described by the nominator, and I can find nothing better. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.