Talk:CalorieKing

untitled
I think that this page should be deleted, because it's written like an advertisement!

I just removed excess information from this page, it seems much better now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I am removing the orphaned article tag, as I have converted references to calorieking.com and calorieking.com.au on other pages on WikiPedia to also contain links to this article where relevant --WarrenGuy (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed a good deal of additional advertising-style talk, such as multiple mention of the company's name and of its products. But there seem to be to external third-party reliable sources for the information, only the company's press releases and web sites. They are acceptable as external links, in moderation, but not as references. Some mentions from the press would help, including a review of the book. I think the company is very possibly notable, but it needs to be shown by such references. (I noticed this article, by the way, in coming from the Nutrition page, which is one of the several hundred I regularly patrol for spam links.) DGG (talk) 16:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I notice that links have been added to this article or to the company web site from a number of fast-food restaurant chains, and some food products. The food products links are obviously excessive, and have been removed. For the chains, it is just possible that the nutritional information is of some value, since the links are to specific lists of that company's food products on the site. I left them in, as an exception. I invite other opinion on this. DGG (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the conflict of interest tag is removed from this page - the page seems to have been quite heavily reworded by other users since it was added and it's been nearly 2 years? Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.23.245.86 (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)