Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturally Vitamins

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naturally Vitamins

Does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Mere advertising. Deli nk 18:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Marlyn Nutraceuticals is listed at Hoovers. click here
Also, if you are going to have "nutraceuticals" as a category, it seems appropriate to also reference companies in the nutraceutical industry.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator about WP:CORP as it applies to this article. I'm neutral on the question of an article about Marlyn Nutraceuticals, if someone wanted to write on of those and then smerge this into it. As for the Hoovers link cited above, I don't know what it's meant to indicate, but it's giving me a "page not found" error. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Here is a different Hoovers link. The point of providing the Hoovers link is in response to Point 2 under "Criteria for Companies and Corporations" which reads:
2 The company or corporation is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.
Hoovers, a publication of Dunn & Bradstreet, is the foremost aggregator of company lists and profiles. Marlyn Nutraceuticals does business as Naturally Vitamins and is listed in Hoovers, consequently meeting point 2 in the Criteria for Companies and Corporations. In the WP:CORP requirements, the Criteria for Companies and Corporations states, "A product or service is notable if it meets any of the following criteria".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
Point 1 of the Criteria for Companies and Corporations states, "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Here are articles relating to Marlyn Nutraceuticals and Naturally Vitamins:
Naturally Vitamins extends Wobenzym deal
Green Manufacturer Marlyn Nutraceuticals Recognized as 2005 Manufacturer of the Year by Arizona Association of Industries
Marlyn Nutraceuticals Awarded $6.3 Million by Federal Jury
Vitamin maker debuts new pills
  • Your second and third links are "media reprints of press releases", which are expressly disqualified by the passage in question, and the fourth link does not qualify as a reliable source. The first article is legitimate, but too brief to be of much value, as it contains only two sentences. The revised Hoovers link (thank you for fixing it) seems to describe the parent company Marlyn Nutraceticals, rather than the subsidiary which is the subject of the article. I also believe that you are misinterpreting clause 2 of WP:CORP as applied to the Hoovers profile, as that section is meant to apply to printed statements of being "the Nth-largest manufacturer of Commodity X", or the "Nth-largest company in Country Y". There are more than 18 million company profiles in the Hoovers database, and as such, the distinction is not a particularly exclusive one. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you meant that point 1 was from an unreliable source and link 4 was only two sentences, as I can't imagine you'd believe the Business Journal isn't a credible source.
In response to Link 1 being from an unreliable source, please elaborate. NutraIngredients-USA.com is a credible, third party news source that publishes articles related to the health food industry. NutraIngredients-USA.com is published by Decision News Media, a publisher of 23 highly targeted industry news websites. Their website traffic is audited by BPA Worldwide to ensure advertisers are paying for credible links.
Here are some more relevant links that I've uncovered since first posting:
Business Journal: Vitamin firm's ads noticed
Business Journal: New vitamin plant debuts
Business Journal: Vitamins donated for children
Business Journal: Avoid blood clots while traveling
In response to the point that articles 2 and 3 are PR reprints...yes, they are however I believe they should be considered relevant because they are not promotion pieces but rather verifiable facts. In regards to the link indicating that Marlyn Nutraceuticals received the Arizona Association of Industries Manufacturer of the Year award, AAI only publishes the most recent year. This year Intel and Armor Works were the recipients. While yes, the press release was generated by Marlyn, the award was provided by AAI and can be verified by contacting them. Here is another link, not Marlyn's press release but a mention in a 3rd party publication regarding the same award
In response to Link 3, the judgement awarded by a Federal Jury. Marlyn won a trial against a company making false claims in Federal Court. Here is a link to the case report at morelaw.com
Here is a separate link I found regarding a cybersquating case involving Marlyn Nutraceuticals.
In response to the point 2 in the Criteria for Companies and Corporations, the criteria is that the company is "listed" in the ranking indices. Hoovers by it's nature is a ranking index and Marlyn is listed. Where a company falls within the listing or the number of companies in the index are not stated in Point 2, and I consequently I feel your point that Hoover's has 18 million companies listed is irrelevant. Please understand, I get your point, it's just not part of the criteria listed in WP:CORP.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
  • You are correct in your assumption about link one and four; apologies for getting my wires crossed. In general, websites like that one are not considered reliable sources (See WP:RS#Using_online_and_self-published_sources). NutraIngredients-USA.com is not peer-reviewed, it is not produced by an well-known independently-published journalist, its articles do not cite their own sources, and the degree and quality of editorial oversight are unclear. As such, it doesn't meet our guidelines for sources. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, and frankly including media coverage from a CITY business journal means nothing, since articles there are rarely a cut above press releases. Hell, often they ARE press releases. --Calton | Talk 02:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:CP. Articles rarely get porkier than this. The article is copied from the company's own website, but with a few words changed here and there. Inclusion in D&B does not imply notability; not impressed by the rehashed press releases either. Ohconfucius 05:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I don't have any more arguments. Y'all are toughies. :) but I appreciate your purpose. Let me pose a question...I have noticed other companies in the nutraceutical market that have listings on Wikipedia. It appears they are listed in food-company-stub. Is it appropriate for the Naturally Vitamins page to be moved into that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrenzyme (talk • contribs)
  • Generally speaking, an article's categorization has no real effect on an AFD discussion; it's basically just an internal filing system. That said, it's certainly possible that the articles for some of those companies don't belong on Wikipedia either, and you're welcome to list them here for discussion if you feel that is the case. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 03:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep this is the most important article ever written in Wikipedia Oh, wait, it's just advertispam. Delete. Stev0 14:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, naturally spam. RFerreira 04:26, 26 September 2006 (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.