Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oronamin C

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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Oronamin C

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Oronamin C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:GNG, normal deletion process was denied, seemingly from a mix-up between Daijisen and Daijisen Plus, which is among others for Brand and Company names. Although even if it was in a dictionary it wouldn't fulfill GNG 8ya (talk • contribs) 18:33, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Thibaut (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep: This is the normal deletion process? The article needs sources and to be revamped, but in a quick Google Search I found a number of sources about the drink, it's popularity and how it was created. For example: https://www.kctv5.com/news/us_world_news/the-sweat-you-drink-inside-the-meteoric-rise-of-asias-answer-to-gatorade/article_8a647d99-4d24-579b-b89b-f7ebb40bdb5f.html, https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/07/20/business/corporate-business/otsuka-pharmaceutical-launches-oronamin-c-drink-indonesia/, https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Asian-migrant-workers-in-UAE-not-thrilled-with-tax-plan FiddleheadLady (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I thought that placing the deletion notice on top of the article was the 'normal' way to do it.
I cannot access the 1st link as it is geoblocked, but for the other two: Maybe I am getting things wrong, please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, since this is my first time requesting a product deletion, but isn't the 2nd just trivial coverage from a product line launch notice (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_trivial_coverage explicitly mentions those as trivial coverage for companies – I don't see much difference for products) and the 3rd a trivial mention? 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Keep There are several academic pieces covering this drink:

• Kim, Young-Ran (2017). "An Analysis of Dance Viral from the Ads,". Journal of the Korea Convergence Society. 8 (6): 283–289. doi:10.15207/JKCS.2017.8.6.283. ISSN 2233-4890.
• Firdaus, Qonita; Suhaeni, Tintin (2020). "Pengaruh Ekuitas Merek Terhadap Minat Beli (Studi Pada Konsumen Oronamin C di Kota Bandung)". Jurnal Riset Bisnis dan Investasi. 6 (2): 64–71. doi:10.35313/jrbi.v6i2.2218. ISSN 2684-706X.
• Kang, A.-Reum; Park, Su-Hee; Woo, Jung-Woong; Hong, Da-Jung; Kim, Kyu-Ri; Sung, Chi-Yeong; Woo, Ji-Yeon; Jeong, Ju-Hui; Jung, Eun-Ha (2020). "Are Vitamin Beverages Good for Dental Health?". Journal of dental hygiene science. 20 (1): 9–15. doi:10.17135/jdhs.2020.20.1.9. ISSN 1598-4478.

And here are some other sources that cover this:

• "オロナミンＣ二本を五〇〇〇円で買った夜──薬物依存症という病にはお金がかかる". Tokushū ichi tsunagari ni mayō tomadō tokushū ni kiru sumu kau. Shien henshū iinkai, 「支援」編集委員会. Tōkyō: Seikatsushoin. 2017. ISBN 978-4-86500-067-2. OCLC 988252179.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
• "国立国会図書館オンライン | National Diet Library Online". ndlonline.ndl.go.jp. Retrieved 2021-07-26.

Jumpytoo Talk 20:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong on any of this, since this is my first time requesting a product deletion:
The first one is about the ad campaign of it, does this count as coverage, since it doesn't "addresses the topic directly"? For example at companies that stuff is explictly excluded from counting.
The 3rd one is an inclusion in a research about 'Vitamin Beverages', which once again I am not sure if it counts
Not so sure of the focus of the 4th one without full text, doesn't seem to be about the product?
However the others do indeed seem like proper coverage, my bad sorry! 8ya (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• While primary coverage about ads would typically not meet WP:CORPDEPTH, the first link is secondary academic coverage and analysis of several of the products advertisements over a 2 year timeframe, which I argue would contribute to the overall product's notability, as it shows the product is important enough to have it's advertisements analyzed after the fact. I agree that the 3rd link isn't as strong as the other one's I provided, but it does have some analysis of the product. The fourth source is a magazine where one of the articles is titled オロナミンＣ二本を五〇〇〇円で買った夜──薬物依存症という病にはお金がかかる, which machine translated corresponds to The night I bought two bottles of Oronamin C for 500 yen - the disease of drug addiction is expensive.. I don't have a copy of the magazine but the title suggests the article talks significantly about the product, specifically how addictive it is. Jumpytoo Talk 05:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• I see, thank you very much. About the 4th link, the theme of the magazine and subheader make me think that it is likely more about the cost/addiction, rather than the product. 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:40, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in the hope that there can be more assessment and appraisal of the provided sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2021 (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.