Talk:Sucanat

(First comment)
The nutrition information is not verifiable. The USDA nutrient database does not have an entry for sucanat. The only specific information for sucanat is published by the NOW company and would suggest the a cup of sucanat would have a density of 165 grams not 150
 * Indeed searching for "Handbook of Nutrient Content of Foods" site:gov on Google gives 0 results. I removed irrelevant and not properly sourced material. Icek 06:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Removed "Doesn't meet notability" tag. -- GeĸrίtzĿ...•˚˚ 15:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Advert tag
The very specific comparisons to Turbinado sugar, combined with the image of a commercial product, make this article seem like a promotion for said product instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. I have added the Advert template accordingly. EHelmuth (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For my part I cannot imagine why the article is still there. It adds nothing to existing articles on sugar or whole cane sugar. It used to contain misleading promotion and since its most recent edit, it contains practically nothing but promotion: a picture of the packaging, careful description of the trade name and its derivation, no mention of rival products (not that we need any!) hardly any substantial information at all, and essentially nothing whatever that does not belong (and is not already) in the appropriate neutral articles. As it stands it amounts to vandalism, a deliberate and pointless waste of readers' and editors' time. JonRichfield (talk) 08:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wellll...
I don't personally mind having an article on whole cane sugar as such, though I agree that the article reads like an ad. I have )expanded the "stub" by putting the nutritional (mis)information into something more like a defensible statement. However, I see that we do have an article on whole cane sugar, so I am not sure why this one deserves a place. To the extent that it contains any valuable information at all, I don't see why that should not be merged into the brand-free article. JonRichfield (talk) 11:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed editorializing
I removed what appeared to be a short essay on semantics and the validity of nutritional claims that was so ranty and ridiculously opinionated I had to do something about it immediately. I added a mention and links to similar whole cane sugar products from Latin America (Panela) and Southeast Asia (Muscavado).


 * I am unsure who contributed the foregoing exhibition of cool NPOV and disinterested nutritional and semiotic competence, but the editing clearly achieved great improvements to the article. It has left us with the following clear assertions, shorn of opinionated rants, nutritional information, and in general with something done about it immediately:
 * Sucanat is a branded product sold in a nice, disposable plastic packet (this point supported by a picture that almost as comfortingly reassures us about the marketing competence of the purveyor, as it informs us about the product. The less imaginative article on Whole cane sugar, by way of comparison, can manage nothing more impressive than illustrations of various forms of the actual product materials mentioned in the article).
 * The derivation of the trade name of the product is clearly explained in a manner so helpful that no potential purchaser wishing to have it impressed on his mind, could ask for anything more explicit. (Mind you, a repetition at the end of the article, pointing out salient points of the correct spelling of the trade name might establish the association even more firmly. Just a helpful suggestion!)
 * The name of the purveyor is clearly mentioned in case any potential purchaser of the product who has read the article should wish to obtain it and be unable to read the brand details from the illustration. Presumably in future versions of the article interested readers might find helpful information on pricing and retail outlets.
 * Fortunately there can be no suggestion of improper brand promotion in the article because it now includes even-handed references to other whole cane sugar products to ensure impartiality... Oh....? Those products are already mentioned in the article on Whole cane sugar and are unbranded are they? Oh well, no doubt someday they might be branded and it is well to be prepared. So that's all right then...
 * The article now explains helpfully that The juice is extracted by mechanical processes (what? not organic processes? Tsk tsk!) This is of great encyclopedic value isn't it? I can just see a reader looking up the article to see whether the juice is extracted by non-mechanical means such as ... what? Induction? Distillation? Osmosis? Pollination?
 * In sharp contrast to what we read in other articles on sugar production, the juice apparently is heated, and cooled, forming small brown grainy crystals. It is lucky for us that we now can read about such crucial details in this article as well, yes? Now all we need is an explanation of the value of this description, given the existence of the other articles on related topics.
 * And so on. Unfortunately I am busy on other projects at the moment, but maybe when I strike a slack period, I could use the current form of the article as a model for more articles on equally neutrally and disinterestedly helpful themes to inform Wikipedia users of rival commercial brands of whole cane sugar. After that we could branch out to brands of cane spirit, organic butter substitutes, and plasticised kindergarten toys, yes? After all, we are here for the benefit of our readers and they cannot expect to get information of this quality from TV advertising, supermarket shelves, telephone marketing... If this article as it stands is anything to go by, Wikipedia has a great commercial future.JonRichfield (talk) 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion tag?
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the deletion proposal. With all the advertising material removed there is practically nothing remaining to move to the whole cane sugar article. If anyone notices anything I have overlooked, by all means move it. There is not a scrap of notability or substance to forfeit and the advertising content is quite obtrusive. I am sorry that I let it go so long without complaining in the first place. JonRichfield (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just asked for my own AFD to be closed. The product is mentioned in many cookbooks and other books on food.  See this search] for example.  As long as the article isn't just an ad for the product, and doesn't have unsubstantiated claims, I think it might as well stay. --Slashme (talk) 20:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

All of the above
This page seems to have had a chequered history, with allegations of non-notability, advertizing, editorializing, and with threats of both deletion and merger. However it has also been improved significantly over the past two years, in that most of the opinion has been removed and it seems now to present a more balanced view of the subject. Also, as it is the subject of several thousand google hits, and appears to turn up in a number of recipe books, it has enough notability, and is likely to be useful to at least some people doing an internet search after finding it mentioned; and at least here they have the chance of reading an unbiased explanation of what this stuff is. So, well done to everyone involved...Moonraker12 (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I would have said there wasn't enough to this article to be worth keeping either, and yet I came to it through a Google search, and it did answer my simple query. So it's worth keeping, but surely we can make it better somehow?Proptology (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing new, it just needs a warning
I read all the discussion and somewhat agree that there's very little objectionable content left, and on the whole I think it should be merged or deleted because its notability is exaggerated by the content in the page and without sources, it's simply too much promotion for too little content. Even if it doesn't get changed, I would have liked the warning of "Advertisement" so I put it up there. Speedfranklin (talk) 05:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)