Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clif Bar

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. Yuser31415 01:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clif Bar

Nom - almost entirely unverifiable information from unreliable sources Keithkml 21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete due to a lack substantial encyclopedic information; most of the article consists of a quote and a list of products – Qxz 21:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - publicity piece, certainly exists but not notable amongst health bars. ^Khukri 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - seems as though references shouldn't be too hard to find? Is there a guideline for product notability?-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 21:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The article is in terrible shape, but they do sell millions of these things. I can go downstairs and get one from my cafeteria right now. I think it is certainly notable and verifiable. As for unreliable sources, the article needs cleanup. --Selket ^Talk 22:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep should be notable, but needs cleanup. Mishatx *разговор* 22:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Notable commercial product. --Dennisthe2 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The Inc. (magazine) story is a good source, and there's certainly more out there ([1], [2], ISBN 1-591-84093-7, for a start). Needs cleanup, though —Celithemis 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up; it's a notable and easily verifiable product. Let's let the editorial process do its job. --Hyperbole 23:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep and even stronger cleanup. Article is a mess, but Clif Bars, though NE (non - edible), are not NN (non - notable). --Action Jackson IV 04:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Dunno, they sure beat the heck out of a MetRX bar. --Dennisthe2 09:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and verifiable product/company, with plenty of reliable sources available, as Celithemis pointed out above. Just needs a major cleanup, which is not a reason to delete. schi ^talk 23:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'd like to see more in the way of third-party references, but the product is clearly notable. --Elonka 03:42, 17 February 2007 (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.