Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smart Balance: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:27, 19 January 2009 editCvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers25,542 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 12:27, 6 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk \| contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
			:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
			<!--Template:Afd top

			Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

			The result was '''keep'''. (]) ] <sup><b>(])</b></sup> 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
	===]===		===]===
	{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD\|O}}

	:{{la\|Smart Balance}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>		:{{la\|Smart Balance}} (<span class="plainlinks">]}}&action=delete}} delete]</span>) – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Line 9:		Line 15:
	*'''Keep.''' Do your reasearch. Highly notable, multiple mentions in reliable sources. Needs refs, but an article needing improvement isn't grounds for deletion. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)		*'''Keep.''' Do your reasearch. Highly notable, multiple mentions in reliable sources. Needs refs, but an article needing improvement isn't grounds for deletion. ]<sub>]</sub> 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
	* '''Keep but rewrite'''. Clearly a notable company; clearly a terrible article. ] (]) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)		* '''Keep but rewrite'''. Clearly a notable company; clearly a terrible article. ] (]) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
			*'''Keep'''. This is a rather popular brand in the supermarkets right now, just needs expansion. ] (]) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

			:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 12:27, 6 February 2022

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) Arbitrarily0 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Smart Balance

Quite unnotable, has no good references, sounds more like an advertisement for the product rather than an encyclopedic article. See also Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Smart Beat. Quid Pro Quo 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Notable food product from a notable company. Satisfies WP:N by having substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, as can be easily found at Google News archive . For example, see CNN.com , St. Petersburg Times , Business Wire , Knight-Ridder , The Virginian Pilot , Prepared Foods , Newsday , Motley Fool , Nutraceuticals World , New York Sun , LA Times , San Diego Union Tribune , Nutrition Action Healthletter , Daily Herald , and Palm Beach Post. Many more such sources in the news archive can be used to improve the article. Deletion is not a substitute for finding good sources and improving an article about a notable and encyclopedic product and company. Edison (talk) 23:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. As per Edison. Proxy User (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Do your reasearch. Highly notable, multiple mentions in reliable sources. Needs refs, but an article needing improvement isn't grounds for deletion. Graymornings_(talk) 02:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite. Clearly a notable company; clearly a terrible article. Timneu22 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Keep. This is a rather popular brand in the supermarkets right now, just needs expansion. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (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.