Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Balance

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 ^(talk) 23:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smart Balance

Quite unnotable, has no good references, sounds more like an advertisement for the product rather than an encyclopedic article. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Beat. Quid Pro Quo²³ 23:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1]. 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)[reply]
Keep. As per Edison. Proxy User (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep but rewrite. Clearly a notable company; clearly a terrible article. Timneu22 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a rather popular brand in the supermarkets right now, just needs expansion. KleenupKrew (talk) 04:38, 19 January 2009 (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.