Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Living

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) –Davey2010 • (talk) 18:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young Living

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a non-noteworthy product, lacks multiple reliable sources about the topic to sustain an article. Only independent third-party source is a local news article about a lawsuit. Company that produces the product is also nonnoteworthy, comes across more as an attack page. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, and then some. Requirements for "Significant coverage," "Reliability," and "Independent of the Subject," have all been met. The sources, as listed on the article, are from multiple United States government websites and multiple independent news sources. The claim that the subject "lacks multiple reliable sources" is entirely unfounded. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources. There are literally 8 additional independent sources other than the lawsuit news article linked throughout. The article is not an attack page as it provides not only government and independently sourced information about the company, but also includes information about the MLM product offerings of the company. For comparison, consider the Wikipedia pages for Joseph Mercola, DXN_(Brand), Scentsy, and anything linked from Category:Multi-level_marketing_companies. Young Living exceeds the average standards and sources (in both quality and quantity) for the majority of MLM pages on Wikipedia. Finally, if anyone believes an article with this quality of sources and this sheer number of independent sources needs work, it better benefits Wikipedia for that user to Be Bold and improve the article, rather than recommend an excellent beginning to an important article for deletion. Removing bias, adding sources, and revision are all time-honored Wikipedia traditions for improving articles rather than deleting them. One of those remedies should be considered first, particularly in light of the dozens of other, poorer MLM company articles (and stubs) on Wikipedia. (EDIT: re-read AfD requirements, so added "keep" up aboveChristopher Lotito (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Author of this article has been involved in canvassing posting notices at the talk pages of several users with a request to advocate this article. Beagel (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize, I had no idea canvassing was a thing and I would never ask anyone to vote against policy or their conscience.Christopher Lotito (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Changed my vote, see below.) ~~Delete.~~ I came here thinking it would be fairly easy to find good sources for a 'keep' result but I was wrong. The FDA and OSHA links are primary source reports, not sifted through a WP:SECONDARY observer. The Young Living brand has not been the subject of any in-depth coverage in non-partisan sources. Even the scientific paper has two authors who work for Young Living. Binksternet (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- - After looking at the Salt Lake Tribune article about the two companies suing each other, I have changed my !vote to 'keep'. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for this explanation about secondary sources, Binksternet. I am still working to find sources which will be suitable, it seems a shame to delete the entire article when other options might exist. I've added 2 additional sources. I hope I am not out of line responding here.Christopher Lotito (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anyone consider withdrawing their "delete" now that additional sources and material have been added? I presume I'm allowed to ask that.Christopher Lotito (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see one additional source, a third-year paper by Harvard student Karen C. Daly, but I don't see any in-depth coverage in that paper, just a passing mention. Is there another source you added? Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's my list of additional sources (not sure when you looked at the article): 1-(book)Quick Reference Guide for Essential Oils, 2-(book) Road to Recovery from Parkinson's Disease, 3-(newspaper)The Epoch Times- 5 ways to... 4-(magazine) Conde Nast Traveler Healthy Traveler Tips, 5-(journal)Journal of Essential Oil Research, 6-Harvard Article at harvard.edu, 16 is a newspaper, and 17 is a trade news publication. All of these appear independent, there is no evidence that any of these are paid for by the company. I presume they are valid secondary sources. That's 8 additional sources, 7 if no one likes the Harvard.edu link.Christopher Lotito (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed sources 3 and 4, with an explanation here: Talk:Young Living. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grayfell, does that mean that you found the other 5 sources noted above acceptable?Christopher Lotito (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said on the talk page, I'm still forming an opinion. The two I removed just seemed like clear-cut undue and medrs problems which seemed egregious enough to remove immediately. If the article survives, the 2001 study and the student paper look to me like they'll need to go as well. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, though. Grayfell (talk) 06:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 07:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | chat _ 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I see significant coverage in
- ~~Adrian, Rhonda. "Young Living Essential Oils offer many benefits", The Mountaineer [Rocky Mountain House, Alta] 07 Jan 2014: C3.~~
- "Young Living Essential Oils; "Massaging Topical Oils Applicator" in Patent Application Approval Process", Politics & Government Week (Jul 3, 2014): 2169.
- Rickard, Mary. "The sweet smell of good health: Essential oils may be able to treat many ailments", News Gazette [Champaign, Ill] 25 Feb 2005: D-1 D-3.
  - and others. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please provide some links for review, @Paul Erik:? A Google search is not showing these for me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but they don't appear to be available online. I found them in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I should add, the Mountaineer article is 614 words, the Politics & Government Week one is 1566, and the News Gazette one is 1336 but only two paragraphs of it deal with "Young Living" directly. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize what the articles say? To be honest, Young Living Essential Oils offer many benefits and The sweet smell of good health: Essential oils may be able to treat many ailments sound more like advertisements than news articles, at least from their titles (especially the first one). It would be useful if we had more to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The one in The Mountaineer actually does read as rather promotional, and looks to be the case of a small-town newspaper supporting a local practitioner of aromatherapy etc. In Politics & Government Week, the article is identified as being written by "News Reporter–Staff News Editor at Politics & Government Week" (a NewsRx publication) although a portion of it directly quotes the patent application. The News Gazette article discusses the purported health benefits of essential oils and aromatherapy, beginning with a discussion of human's capacity to distinguish smells (Axel and Buck's work), discusses a survey of local physicians and chiropractors about their interest in "therapeutic qualities of essential oils", some interviews with users and practitioners, some other aromatherapy research, and some discussion of the "raindrop technique" and its origins from Young Living. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep (see keep reasoning below) - I found a television news broadcast by FOX News (which I am not entirely certain I can call a "reliable source", but am willing to treat it as an impartial one here) which features the Christian women of Joshua House in Stafford, TX who own and run the business that produces this product, though the news broadcast never actually mentions the words "Young Living" in it, only the words "essential oils" (all of which, in the broadcast, are clearly marked Young Living Essential Oils). If the spot had somehow been a paid-for piece, it would have mentioned the product by name, which it did not. Another FOX news piece (also originally a television spot, it looks like, this time from Oklahoma City) about essential oils that mentions Young Living in passing once. According to this, the founder may be a quack, but that is neither here nor there. Next was a press release in the Fort Francis Times (not independent, can't be used), then a passing mention in an eMissourian article about a local farmer's market, and then a mention in the Colchester Calendar of the Truro Daily News about the Truro Christian Women's Club presentation on the oils at a continental breakfast at Bible Hill (along with crochet meetings, seniors' dances, quilt show, and a bluegrass festival). To me, this does not appear to add up to bona fide notability, though I think it may be a borderline case against it (the first of the two FOX News broadcasts is the <cringe> best evidence I see of potential notability). I am going to have another look at the article's references as they currently stand, and will revise my vote if what I review there changes my mind. Also: Christopher Lotito, do you have any COI for this article? If so, you should reveal that immediately so that it can be taken into consideration. It will not result in the article's automatic deletion, but it should not be concealed from the discussion; you talk about this subject as though you are personally invested in it somehow. If so, can you talk a little about how? KDS4444^Talk 00:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just switched my vote from a delete to keep. I just read the article in the Salt Lake Tribune, which is a pretty major newspaper in a pretty major city: it discusses the subject of the article specifically and in relation to a lawsuit with another essential oil company. This looks now like clear evidence of notability to me (surpassing all mentions in FOX News broadcasts, at last!) KDS4444^Talk 00:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share the details of that article, such as its name, author and date? Even better would be a link. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's this article, @Binksternet:which is about a lawsuit and not the company. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any Conflict of Interest, or relationship whatsoever, regarding this article. I've edited Joseph Mercola (another alternative medicine practitioner) previously and when I came across the news coverage of Young Living, I believed that it merited its own article.Christopher Lotito (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Searching a little more with Google newspapers, I find this article in the Southeast Missourian which says that Young Living is the "leading U.S. producer" of these oils. And there is this in the Daily Herald which has more discussion of the company. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.