Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nutrilite


 * 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. no argument for deletion aside from nom JForget  00:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nutrilite
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability of the subject is questionable and not satisfactorily proven. Nomination for deletion and debate are now appropriate. Merge with Amway Global is proposed as a secondary option (previously approved via discussion). Xaliqen (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Please ignore mistaken 2nd nomination description. There is only one nomination for deletion so far.  The 2nd nomination is due to my own mistake using Twinkle for automated AfD.  I apologise for any undue confusion/inconvenience. --Xaliqen (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I've fixed the error, duplicate deleted, and this one moved to correct name, and afd link in article fixed.  Ron h jones (Talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not a very good article, but this product has been on the market for almost eighty years and seems notable for that reason alone. Figureofnine (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question, is the length of time a product has been on the market a criterion for notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think eighty year's longevity is so rare that yes, it is a notable product. It may not be in the notability criteria, but it is common sense in my opinion. However, I cannot vouch for that longevity claim, as I have no personal familiarity with this product, and am just accepting that assertion on good faith. Figureofnine (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense, but we really need reliable sources to back up any claims including the longevity of the product, and I do think it's important that longevity of production is not a criterion as far as I know for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did a quick Google News search and found lots of old stuff, including this from 1951: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50A1EFF39591A7B93C0AB178ED85F458585F9 And then there's this: http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0714FB3B5F177A93C2AA178ED85F448585F9 In addition to these subscription articles, there are plenty of free sources in the Google News archive. Seems that an article on this product may not be exactly promotional. I've added a section based on the second link. This was a Supreme Court case. Really no doubt about this product's notability. Figureofnine (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of notable third-party sources seems to be the primary issue identified by editors, myself included. Since Nutrilite is not an independent company, but a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amway, Nutrilite is currently more of a brand for Amway corp.  As a brand, the question of notability seems even more important.  Maintaining separate articles for widely-known brands (such as Honda's Acura or Toyota's Lexus) seems appropriate.  Including articles for lesser-known brands (such as Malt-O-Meal's Mom's Best Naturals or Hansen Natural's Ace Energy Drink) seems questionable when a strong case for independent notability is not established. While the longevity of the product-line adds weight to the notability argument, there is still a question as to whether the relevant material might work better merged into Amway's primary articles. --Xaliqen (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep based on the longevity of the product. (By the way, I finished changing over the AfD.) Raymie (t • c) 00:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is suitable coverage to establish notability. Its history of exaggerated claims in the 1950s is more than enough for establishing notability. Its position in the early phase of multi-level marketing is of note. It has a checkered history not reflected in the article; the discussion page has an good outline for expansion. If any tags should be placed, they should be for expansion, not lack of notability.Novangelis (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your comment. Yes, there are plenty of old and uncomplimentary articles dating back decades and readily available. Figureofnine (talk) 15:54, 12 September 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.