Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jilly Juice

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. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jilly Juice

Jilly Juice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This bizarre

a few years back and, with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is clear that this is all it was. Sure, it was picked up by a buncha newspapers who laughed and tut-tutted about the ridiculousness and encouraged shock over the horrific health outcomes of it all, but, in sum, this is a story about a woman with a kinda of personality disorder who drummed up a small following on the internet and ran afoul of the FTC. Wikipedia, ultimately, is an encyclopedia. This is not encyclopedic and there is no decent way to discuss this and other similar snake oil flashes in the pan.

The article is pretty poor because it does not do much more than scoff. And rightly so. The subject is asinine on the face. This is why I think Wikipedia ought to exclude it as a subject. It's not a particularly popular fad, it seems to have no staying power, and I think those who were involved in keeping the article up were hoodwinked by tabloid journalism and train-wreck fascination. jps (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Medicine. jps (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The article does need to be trimmed down a fair bit. But references 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 (at least) are significant and reliable coverage, and I think we should have a record of ridiculous quack nonsense like this for when these bogus health claims get resurrected on the next social media platform. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a standalone article? It seems that this just serves as a
    WP:SENSATION record at that point. jps (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Keep per
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT (and that essay is an essay). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Not so much "I don't like it". More "how is this worthy of an article"? There are lots of things I don't like that are obviously worthy of articles. This one strikes me as entirely ginned up because of the tabloid journalism and social media hyping. I think that makes it a subject that fails

  WP:ENC prima facie. YMMV, of course. This is, after all, the encyclopedia of Pokemon as well. :/ jps (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep per User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång rationale, ongoing coverage proves staying power of the phenomenon. WilsonP NYC (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It raised mild interest for a news cycle, and now society has moved on, and so should we. TypoBoy (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This is another pseudoscience scam that can best be handled as a small subsection in a related article such as juice fasting. It's just another variant on that, only with a proprietor who knew how to better market her particular scam than most. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is still relevant and will be helpful for vulnerable people who might be tempted to try the product and do an internet search on it first. The fact that people are talking much less about the initial sensational story doesn't change the fact that Jilly Juice still exists and is still potentially dangerous to new customers. Besides that,current newsworthiness is a poor criteria for the value of information. 2600:1702:680:D00:793A:1A55:5512:8DD (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Seems well sourced, interesting historical curiosity I suppose. Article could use a rewrite to focus on the investigation and shutdown of the product, but that's not really for AfD Oaktree b (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are some quite in-depth reliable sources on the topic (e.g. the 4 mentioned by User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång), and the fact that it's still getting referenced by RS in 2023 as an interesting historical example of an alternative medicine health scam means it's probably going to continue to be an interesting/notable "historical curiosity" (as Oaktree said) into the future. (Also, less important, but
  WP:ONEEVENT is about BLPs, so not applicable here). Endwise (talk) 07:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: per Gråbergs and Oaktree. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:08, 2 February 2024 (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.