Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jana Skinny Water


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Jana Skinny Water

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article fails notability and is stuffed with pseudoscience from the manufacturer's press releases. Zero Google Scholar hits, zero PubMed hits, a one-line mention in New Scientist in 2006, and zero Google News hits. Some web results, but these are either unreliable sources or published by the company selling the product. The few reliable sources listed in the article deal with some of the ingredients of the product, not the product itself. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As this is part of a class project, a possible alternative to deletion would be to merge into flavored water, but the article would require a complete re-write to deal with the broader topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advert. It's one of those 'drink our suppliment and you will lose weight' products. It certainly does exist but google produces just one weak review which says there's no scientific evidence to say this works. Of course it doesn't work, its just crap dressed up as pseudo science. Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising - and WP:BOLLOCKS -- Boing!   said Zebedee  20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertisement for a totally non-notable product.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I previously noticed this article from it being part of the class project, and I noted that at least the article creator is trying to put in reliable sources. If we can remove the advertising content, the article could be made acceptable. There are several sources out there which express skepticism of the product's claims and which could be used in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a rather vague wave at the internet. Could you be more specific about these sources? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See the non-press release content found in this Google News search. I'm not saying that these sources say a lot about this product, but a few of them could help tone down the hype involved here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost all press releases, what isn't mentions the product in passing. For example, there is a single sentence about the product in the best source on that list NYT story, which is from a reliable source but such passing mentions don't help establish notability. It would however be a great source for the flavored water article into which this article might be merged. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to flavored water along with its one example of reliably-sourced, third-party coverage. A good faith effort by a student compelled to fulfill a class assignment without sufficient grasp of Wikipedia policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge - This product certainly isn't notable enough for its own article, unless Metropolitan90 can link to the sources s/he is talking about. I guess a merge would be OK, but it seems like only a very small portion of this article really should end up in the flavored water article. As this is a school assignment, could this be userfied? P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 23:10, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've already offered to do that on the author's talkpage. This is an unfortunate situation. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Advertising, lack of reliable sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 13:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, and inappropriately written as promotional material.  Peacock (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2010 (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.