Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LUNA 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. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LUNA Bar

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

Yet another WP:AN#Expewikiwriter paid-editing article. Checking the links, I find the notability in great doubt - the supposed Glamour link is a blog, for instance. Not to mention the actual text is garbage - pure promotional advertisement in language, and would need to be completely and totally thrown out even if we did want an article on this, due to WP:NOTADVERT. Should probably redirect to the main company's page. (Clif Bar) if when deleted.

Keep with cautions. I think it's just about got enough sources: Mountain Biking Magazine, Self (magazine), Fitness (magazine), San Francisco Business Times, and the NYT are fine if it's not just a passing mention, and Glamour magazine blogs are probably ok per WP:RS ("Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control."). I'd suggest cutting out the obviously promotional or dubious and unreferenced bits, tagging with templates giving remaining concerns, and improving it generally. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Check what the sources actually are - they're terrible. Glamour is a blog in the standard usage, and says that the company sent her the product to try. It doesn't say anything more substantial than "I tried them. I liked them.". Self is 100% advert, the San Francisco Business Times barely mentios it; Fitness won't load for me, so I can't say, Mountain Biking Magazine is one of those chatty, press releasey things, and the NYT source never actually mentions the product under discussion. The only one that might work at all is Mountain Biking, but that one's borderline press release, and not focused on the product much. 86.** IP (talk) 09:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did find references in Google Books (though with full text not always available): Marketing That Matters by Chip Conley[1] Wal-smart by William H. Marquard, Bill Birchard[2] and others[3][4] It appears to be a quite celebrated product in the marketing world. The references in the article aren't as helpful: some seem to be broken links, and some (e.g. the NYT) are about other LUNA products rather than LUNA bars. The Glamour story may seem repugnant to you, but it's not an obvious violation of WP:RS. LUNAFEST has received a certain amount of press coverage, though it's maybe not notable in itself.[5][6][7][8][9] It might be better to rename the page to cover the LUNA brand: "LUNA is a brand of nutrition products created by Clif Bar & Company in 1999, which includes nutrition bars and drinks, and also sponsors the LUNAFEST film festival..." --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, notable with wp:rs. I'd be happier if the links to those sources were all working and not PDFs hosted at the subject's site (US, Self, Fitness, especially). I found them (under Press) but I think links to the sources where possible are needed. The NYT reference seems to be a review of LUNA Electrolyte splash is really not a profile of Luna - probably shouldn't be here at all. Wikipelli ^Talk 14:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is about a candy bar marketed with weight loss claims. Sources verify that the product exist. What celebrity endorsements and blurbs in women's magazines, no doubt orchestrated by their PR firm, don't establish is that the product has had any significant effects on history, culture, or technology that elevate it above the dozens of similar products to give this particular product lasting, encyclopedic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (COI--these got me through college, this makes them a net asset for Wikipedia. Yes, I'm female. They're tasty) I've never seen them marketed with weight loss claims--is that in one of the sources? When you get right down to it, it's basically a granola bar, if you want to quibble, it's not a candy bar (I'll be the first to admit all these sort products really are just candy with vitamins), but a nutrition bar/protein bar/energy bar. Valfontis (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Clif Bar - All the purported "good sources" in the footnotes are showing back as 404 to the company website. Which is really annoying. One article about the company, I think that passes muster. But this? Not in my opinion... Carrite (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not that I completely disagree, but the links on the company website were broken sometime over the last few months. The targets are there (About Us -> Press), just moved.Wikipelli ^Talk 01:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decent article, the product is real, and there doesn't seem to be any reason to delete this. LogicalCreator —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Stubbify using best available sources, merge and Redirect to Clif Bar per research by Colapeninusula and others and per WP:PRODUCT--at this point I'm not sure there are enough substantive independent reliable sources for a stand-alone article. Note that WP:NOTADVERT does not mean that we do not have articles or article sections on products, services and companies, only that if the product or company is in fact notable the articles are not promotional in tone. Per WP:ATTP, although I've wasted far too much time this week (as have 86* and many others, thank you) tracking and cleaning up after this paid promotional sock farm, we need to argue at AfD based on our policies and guidelines, and not based on the motivations of the article creator (unless of course it's a clear case of {{db-g11}}--this article is slightly above that threshold). Valfontis (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by the way, this is one of the few articles not actually created by Expewikiwriter. It appears to have been started in 2007 by an unaffiliated editor who thought the product was at least as notable as the gender-neutral counterpart. Here is what the article looked like pre-Expewikiwriter intervention. Not great either, but not Expewikiwriter (unless they've been socking for longer than we've figured out so far). Valfontis (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (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.