Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honey packet

Honey packet

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

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

This article is written in a promotional tone that resembles marketing rather than neutral encyclopedic content, in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and promotional content (WP:ADVERT, WP:PROMO) policies. The language appears to promote the product, and may reflect undisclosed paid editing (WP:PAID). The article lacks a neutral and critical perspective necessary for verifiability and encyclopedic quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilio102wiki (talk • contribs)

The page was originally created by a paid editor on behalf of a manufacurer and did push a particular product. However, all mention of the manufacturer has been removed to make this focus on the category of products. I strongly disagree with the statement that it "lacks a neutral and critical perspective". It is most certainly critical, whatever else one may say. :) - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are news about the seizure of the product by France. [1]. The best source I can find is this USA Today article; There is also this Daily Dot article. I'm neutral about this as I don't know if the sources in the article is good enough and if WP:MEDRS also applies to notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 7 is the only RS, the rest are non-RS. I don't see much except for the Forbes piece we could use, I only pull up things about actual honey. Oaktree b (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source 7 is a WP:FORBESCON Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:02, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ok, it's still a delete Oaktree b (talk) 22:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and WP:TNT. What a huge mess. Bearian (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a bit of a disaster-zone, definitely WP:SPAM Nayyn (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This seems fine, I can find a handful sources on this pseudoscientific supplement (more often under the alternate name "honey pack"). A warning from the Belizean government,^[1] television news coverage in Arizona,^[2] and a warning from the US government that some of these products secretly contain actual pharmaceuticals^[3]^[4] leading to discussion in trade publications for pharmacists^[5] and emergency medicine physicians.^[6] I don't see anything to support the above claims of spam or promotional language, especially after Bilby's cleanup a week preceding the AfD nomination. In fact, the article is highly critical of the topic and treats it as I would expect any article on a junk health supplement. I am suspect of the nomination itself, which feels LLM-written to me. It came days after the article cleanup, and the AfD notice was first placed by Marie20123 but the nomination statement was written later by Emilio102wiki. Marie20123 was then shortly thereafter blocked for undisclosed paid editing. I'm not sure what exactly is going on here but the deletion rationale doesn't line up with the state of the article or indicate any WP:BEFORE. It might need some copyediting but I don't see a proper rationale for deletion. If this doesn't meet WP:LASTING it might be worth merging into honey or another article on junk supplement trends, but I don't really see the specific issues raised so far in the nomination. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lopez, Paul (2025-06-02). "Strong warnings against use of 'honey pack'". News 5 Live. Greater Belize Media. Archived from the original on 2025-08-15 – via Facebook.
^ "Troubling 'honey packet' trend gaining ground among college students". KPHO. 2024-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-12-08 – via YouTube.
^ Lanese, Nicoletta (2022-07-12). "Honey marketed for 'sexual enhancement' could be dangerous, FDA warns". Archived from the original on 2022-07-12.
^ "X Rated Honey For Men contains hidden drug ingredient" (Press release). Food and Drug Administration. 2021-07-09. Archived from the original on 2025-07-12.
^ "Hidden active ingredients found in honey-based products". US Pharmacist. 2022-08-17. Archived from the original on 2022-08-25.
^ Hagahmed, Mohamed (2025-02-07). "The hidden dangers of honey packets: A guide for prehospital clinicians". Journal of Emergency Medical Services. Archived from the original on 2025-02-19.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The detailed analysis from Dan_Leonard warrant a closer look.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – No scientific basis or encyclopedic relevance. Svartner (talk) 06:56, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Have the spam concerns been dealt with? Is the topic notable if covered neutrally?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pseudoscience? Yes. Not notable? No. Coverage in mainstream media and an article in Journal of Emergency Medical Services indicates WP:SIGCOV is met.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I would have to agree to the observations and findings of Dan Leonard and 4meter4, article is fair and neutral in tone. And citations pointed out does have SIGCOV albeit mostly critical about the product.Lorraine Crane (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[Lopez_2025-1] Lopez, Paul (2025-06-02). "Strong warnings against use of 'honey pack'". News 5 Live. Greater Belize Media. Archived from the original on 2025-08-15 – via Facebook.

[KPHO_2024-2] "Troubling 'honey packet' trend gaining ground among college students". KPHO. 2024-12-04. Archived from the original on 2024-12-08 – via YouTube.

[Lanese_2022-3] Lanese, Nicoletta (2022-07-12). "Honey marketed for 'sexual enhancement' could be dangerous, FDA warns". Archived from the original on 2022-07-12.

[FDA_2021-4] "X Rated Honey For Men contains hidden drug ingredient" (Press release). Food and Drug Administration. 2021-07-09. Archived from the original on 2025-07-12.

[USPharmacist_2022-5] "Hidden active ingredients found in honey-based products". US Pharmacist. 2022-08-17. Archived from the original on 2022-08-25.

[Hagahmed_2025-6] Hagahmed, Mohamed (2025-02-07). "The hidden dangers of honey packets: A guide for prehospital clinicians". Journal of Emergency Medical Services. Archived from the original on 2025-02-19.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]