Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fiber One bars


 * 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   I added a speedy delete tag to it so that the article can be deleted and that the pointless stress can be ended. I do not want to deal with the article anymore. Joe Chill (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiber One bars

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was told that the sources aren't reliable without explanation. I think that they are reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply Self published sources are never reliable, as since they are self-published, they do not meet our reliable sources policy. Just because you think they are reliable does not make them so.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But they AREN'T self-published sources. Every website that I added has more than one writer. Joe Chill (talk) 04:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom unless we can get some reliable sources in there that say otherwise. Self-published sources aren't reliable. (I had prodded this article after I declined speedy as nonsense) Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't self-published. Joe Chill (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be glad to change my position if you'd stop edit warring, stop arguing and go improve the article with some actual WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I THINK that they are. Your opinion is not mine. And you are arguing yourself. 05:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." None that matches the sources. Joe Chill (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because they aren't published by you does not mean they aren't self published. From what I have seen, they are.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What have you seen? Joe Chill (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Several blogs, which are self-published. Not reliable in the least.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't blogs and you can shut-up about the article now because I added a speedy to it. Joe Chill (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are. I've been here my fair share of time, and I know a blog when I see one.— Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also. I was active on the site starting summer 2008 with a different account that I don't use anymore. People have different opinions of what a blog is. Joe Chill (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't my opinion, that is a blog, period.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's my opinion and your opinion, period. Joe Chill (talk) 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. Those are blogs, if you don't think they are, that's your problem, but they are collective blogs.  They are not news agencies with peer review and fact-checking.  They have disclaimers if you search hard enough for them.  They are blogs by our policy.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep The article could certainly use work, but it strikes me as a well-known, widely-advertised commercial product (one for which notable sources could probably be found).  If they stop making them in a few years, we can always delete it then. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete, but it seems Joe has got fed up and decided to request Speedy Deletion himself. Astronaut (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2009 (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.