Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soylent (food substitute)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) WikiPuppies  bark dig 23:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Soylent (food substitute)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nutrition is an area notoriously rife with weird untested unscientific mumbo jumbo. Soylent is a new liquid food, meant to substitute regular food. It's being marketed as suitable for everyone, with no real testing. None of the people involved have any qualifications, or registrations, or experience, as nutritionists or dieticians. Indeed, none of them have any medical qualifications at all. Soylent is successfully creating a lot of publicity buzz, so there is a lot of coverage in newspapers. So I think it's hard to get the article deleted on notability grounds? And I'm not going to register so I can nominate an article for deletion. But there are many liquid food products available, and most of those have extensive testing. There are medical products (Ensure; Nutricia; all the Abbott Nutrition brands; etc. There are domestic and diet products (complan, slimfast, etc etc.)  So the untested nature of Soylent, and the tested nature of other products should be in the article. 31.126.158.75 (talk) 6:55 am, Yesterday (UTC−7)


 * Keep The coverage in mainstream news seems to me to establish Soylent's notability. WP:FRINGE mainly says not to give a fringe theory undue weight on a page about a mainstream topic, not that a fringe theory shouldn't have an article about it. Soylent is not covered on Medical food or on any page about nutrition. The article doesn't say that Soylent is any good. It cites sources saying that it's probably dangerous, hasn't been fully tested, and cites facts suggesting that its inventor is not qualified to design an artificial nutritional program. Even if the article gave too much weight to the positive coverage of Soylent (is there any?), that would not be grounds for deleting the article, it would be grounds for improving it. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 12:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The cited sources demonstrate notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete obviously. Invented January 2013?Stenen Bijl (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Plenty of solid sources. The nominator also hasn't given a valid reason for deletion. Being unbalanced or possibly dangerous does not qualify. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when did "sources exist" become a reason for someone to publish an article about something?Stenen Bijl (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So we should get rid of WP:GNG? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, concerns about whether this is a wise idea, or concerns about any health risks are irrelevant. the poor quality of the article is irrelevant (seems to try to make a case against the product). all that matters is there are multiple third party sources reporting on this phenomenon. Its not VERY notable, but notable enough for an article. PS he's nuts thinking something like this can be cheap and replace all other food, but again thats not relevant here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Covered in the Economist lately. There is sufficient warning in the article to keep this from being a "promotional" article. Paul (User:Lpgeffen) (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is plainly notable. There is sufficient discourse in the media already, and the project has only just begun to launch.  The future is likely to bring more and better citations, and the project is going to become more notable.  If "incorrectness" was grounds for deletion, then perhaps we should go ahead and delete articles about, for example, the Loch Ness Monster.  If the product is "unbalanced or possibly dangerous" as Clarityfiend put it, then the article should exist to note that fact, making it all the more relevant and notable.  There are absolutely no grounds for deletion here.  stephan.com (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite it's being relatively new and though it seems to me that it's going to be a temporary fad, I say keep based on discussion above. &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  17:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ben Kovitz (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I think the project is a deliberate bad joke. or publicity stunt, considering the significance of the name of the product. Synthetic diets are a real subject, deserving appropriate articles. The bar to topics of this sort ,which is basically no different from a web meme, should be higher than the existing coverage. At this point, the relevant policy ins NOT NEWS .  DGG ( talk ) 00:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are sufficient sources, and the article clearly meets WP:GNG. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The references in the article are from multiple, reliable sources and it appears to mee WP:GNG. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - and if someone can find the link, you can add an NPR interview to the references. It was that interview that aired just now that sent me here, so that's another strike in favor of notability. --Jay (Histrion) (talk • contribs) 18:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Is it made from people? Geoff  Who, me?  22:14, 31 May 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.