This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs) at 03:27, 19 January 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 03:27, 19 January 2009 by CvyvvZkmSUDowVf (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Smart Balance
- Smart Balance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
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. QuidProQuo 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)