Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Living Essential Oils


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Young Living Essential Oils

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No third party reliable sources for this MLM company. The article's only references are the company's own website and a listing on a local United Way site as a partner (plus one site with safety information that doesn't appear to refer to this company specifically).

Only 11 news articles in Google; 5 are relevant: 4 are ads or promotional in nature, and one is a blog that says a snowboarder uses their lip balm. I saw essentially no reliable sources in the first five pages of Google search results, with the only possible exception being a QuackWatch article examining the company's claims. In other words, no reliable sources to confer notability. Zachlipton (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails WP:CORP, sources do not demonstrate notability. ukexpat (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and WP:CORP. Should have been deleted along with D. Gary Young, Gary young president of young living, Gary Young (businessman), and Ningxia red. --Ronz (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Guettarda (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete said the Dalek (per Ukexpat). Phearson (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. As much as I'd like this article to be deleted, salted and then salted again, there are mentions in scholarly material and mentions in books. A survey indicates they lack a depth of coverage and are often dubious or heavily dusted with promotion/COI. However, there are enough that there's a possibility that WP:GNG could be met with A Few Good Articles. tedder (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Nice find with this research. However, I am rather skeptical of the reliability and substancialness of some of these sources. Looking through the scholarly materials, I see some references to the company as a supplier of oils for experiments, but I don't really see discussion of this company beyond that in the articles. I don't think saying "we obtained product X from Young Living" is substantial coverage within the meaning of the GNG. The other "scholarly articles" appear to be spam that has worked its way into Google Scholar. As for the books, they certainly have more substantial coverage, but I'm concerned about their reliability. Many seem to involve personal anecdotes ("I bought these oils from Young Living"). As for the others, it's hard to tell how accepted they are: certainly not by the scientific community, but perhaps by the homeopathic community? Certainly, I and many of us have a POV here as you acknowledge (though I suspect that if this article remained on Wikipedia, it would result in a net loss to the company's reputation compared to if it was just deleted), but I fully acknowledge the article should be kept if it meets the guidelines. I just don't think the sources are really there to cover this subject in a neutral encyclopedic manner. The use of multi-level-marketing also complicates the search for sources, as it creates great incentives for people to promote the company regardless of its merit. Zachlipton (talk) 07:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per weak refs Someone65 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2011 (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.