Talk:SweeTango

Older entries
Removed Delete notice. Showed several reasons for its notability under Trademark and Patent section pertaining to SweeTango's Patent - with references. One reason for its notability is that it is superior to the state fruit of Minnesota, the Honeycrisp apple (its "mother"). Its "father" is the Zestar Apple. Association of University Technology Managers named the Zestar apple one of the top 25 innovations that changed the world. See also new Notability section with numerous references.--Doug Coldwell talk 12:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Corrected this information - the cited article says "Honeycrisp" was one of the top 25 innovations, not "Zestar."96.35.174.133 (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please remember to follow WP:RS when adding citations. See also: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist Shep  Talk  21:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or is this article worded too much like an advertisement? I'm not challenging the notability of the subject itself, I just get the feeling from skimming through it that it goes into much more detail about things like the patent than would be considered encyclopedic for any similar articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.61.77 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is obviously an advertisement, why has this not been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.71.140 (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've got to agree with the above, this article isn't 'good', needs more work. Leo Breman (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing "Notability" section from the article
I'm removing the section called "Notability" from the article. I'm posting it here, as its citations may have information that could be used to improve the article, and the citations could establish notability if the article is nominated for deletion again (it was apparently nominated in the past). The style of writing and much of the content is decidedly not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, references to the University of Minnesota's and Pepin Heights' websites explaining their positions on ethical criticism about them are not neutral, reliable sources. Following is the current content of the Notability section that I'm removing:


 * WCCO Broadcasting explains that the SweeTango is a good eating apple as well as a good cooking apple and goes on to say The apple has all the sugar you crave with just a hint of tartness, just the right combination for any fruit fanatic.


 * Wall Street Journal says that New York farmers are looking for the next big "Moneycrisp", previously the Honeycrisp, and believe the SweeTango is it for the future.


 * USA Today writes that Minnesota apple growers believe that SweeTango is a possible worthy successor to the popular and highly successful Honeycrisp apple variety.


 * Associated Press reports on the Hot New Apple: SweeTango, Spicy and Sweet and gives an extensive review.


 * StarTribune newspaper reports that the AppleHouse opens at the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum featuring the new SweeTango .


 * The News Tribune newspaper writes a report that the Licensing deal for hot new apple comes under fire for University of Minnesota's exclusive rights to the intellectual property of the SweeTango growing exclusive licensing deals. Others have explained the concept behind this.


 * Post-Bulletin newspaper reports that Pepin Heights Orchard believes that they have the next "dynamite" apple with the SweeTango.


 * University of Minnesota reports that this new brand of apple is a "managed variety", meaning to maintain high quality standards.


 * Foodgreekery believes that SweeTango is Honeycrisp's nightmare.


 * A fruit grower comments on the SweeTango in confidence of its futureThe growers and marketers of the new apple variety SweeTango share confidence in its future.


 * A recipe for SweeTango apple cobbler can be found online. Numerous reviews of the SweeTango apple can be found online.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on SweeTango. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304025838/http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf to http://www.nyshs.org/pdf/fq/09fall/NYFQ-FALL-09-pp-9-12.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203023650/http://www.apples.umn.edu/SweeTango/ to http://www.apples.umn.edu/SweeTango/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: at least four different sources were copy-pasted, see edit summaries. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)