Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sego (diet drink)


 * 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.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Sego (diet drink)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

unremarkable product, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Sources provided are primary soureces, advertisements created by the manufacturer itself. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the one who contested the prod, but have no connection with the article apart from a spelling fix last month. The nominator is a self-confessed exclusionist who responded to my objection by quoting an irrelevant WikiPolicy. Anyway, it is a product that has a place in history of dieting, hence its mention in a book on the subject.  You can buy memorabilia , people are asking questions about the product , local historians write articles about the factory   My final argument is that there is life before the Internet. Remember that this is a product from the sixties, it is highly likely that there is coverage in contemporary newspapers and magazines. Having said that, I have found many independent sources doing my few minutes research for this statement, which I shall note on the articles talk page for future reference. Periglio (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I might have a little bias here, because I created and expanded the article fairly significantly. I did so using Notable Sources.  I'd suggest that products like Sego track a fairly important trend in meal replacement -- not to mention its place in the history of a notable U.S. dairy products company and its role in the discovery of a notable film actress. Only two of the seven sources in the article are advertisements, and in this case they are both used to credibly elucidate the product range; there's little reason to think LIFE Magazine was publishing fraudulent advertising. That the product is fleshed out in the Harvard University, Baker Library, Lehman Brothers Collection report goes a long way to suggest the product is notable.842U (talk) 11:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment availability of merchandise, blogs discussions and ads for the product are not sufficient evidence of notability. The  Lehman Brothers Collection article demonstrates the notability of the parent company but not this product.  Perhaps a merge there is the appropriate thing to do here.
 * Comment availability of merchandise and blogs discussions about the product is sufficient evidence of notability. It demonstrates that the product was known well enough, i.e. notable, in its era to live on in peoples memory. Periglio (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment These self-published sources do not meet wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. "well known" is subjective and doesn't have as much to do with notability, at least for Wikipedia, as you might think.  It seems paradoxical but a subject that is hardly known at all can and has often met Wikipedia notability guidelines more easily than something that is widely known.  It all comes down to if/how it is being covered in reliable sources.  You are going to have to come up with something more persuasive that "I like it and other people do too".--RadioFan (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have demonstrated that the product was notable by showing how it lives on after its actual demise. Articles for sale on Amazon and Ebay are not self-published sources nor are they subjective. No one has said that the links were a reliable source, I merely introduced the links to emphasise that it is a still recognised product and is worthy of an article. I have never made the argument "I like it and other people do too" and I do not have to come up with anything more persuasive - This is a forum where users have their say and an Administrator decides on the strength of argument. So kindly desist in trying to negate peoples opinion by quoting irrelevant WP:ATA policy. Please move on and let this Afd run its course. Periglio (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Strong delete I'm sorry, but a majority of the "references" are advertisements. They, in themselves, aren't actual sources or references.  D u s t i *poke* 00:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep We can see a snippet view from a 1979 book called Advertising and the practice of marketing that says "The Pet Milk Company had made a decision to enter the liquid diet food market, recently popularized by Metrecal, despite the fact that the trade press estimated that over two hundred brands of liquid diet food were being ..." A trade publication called Food Business wrote in 1963, in this snippet: "Experiments to incorporate these qualities into a diet food resulted in Sego. (The Sego name was a re-application of a Pet brand of evaporated milk marketed in Utah, and derived originally from the state flower of Utah — the sego.)" A 2010 book called The Hundred Year Diet: America's Voracious Appetite for Losing Weight described the market battle between Metrecal and Sego. This same market battle was discussed decades earlier in Cases in consumer behavior in 1969. These online sources from an era when many reliable sources aren't available online, show notability, Though long off the market, the product was (and therefore still is) notable.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  07:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Trade publications dont always make great sources. They are often little more than rewording of press releases.  The mentions you list above dont sound like the kind of "significant" coverage called for by notability guidelines.  I'm sure everyone participating in this discussion has done the Google book search as well and didn't come up with anything stronger either.  Mention of the subject in a published book just isn't enough to demonstrate notability.--RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Again you ignore the point that the product predates Google. The fact that Google reveals 3rd party references and the products use as an iconic image demonstrates its notability. The product no longer exists but is still talked about. Also, the mentioned books are not trade publications? Finally, you somehow conclude everyone does a google search and not find anything? How do you reach this conclusion when you are the only one arguing? Periglio (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources other than those found via Google are very welcome in this or any other deletion discussion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cullen - to me, those Google Books snippets are indeed significant coverage. Also, if there is that much information on google books, there is probably a lot more in print sources which aren't available online. --Cerebellum (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2013 (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.