Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green smoothie


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete. It might be worthwhile to discuss the possibility of merging into smoothie after any required improvements and the removal of non-neutral content.  Sandstein  06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Green smoothie

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Appears to be promoting a specific brand-name product, rather than a genre; possibly could have been CSD as advert, but as it has survived PROD, I'm bringing it here. All info seems to stem from "annwigmore" and related, promotional sites; I don't see any general notability for the product, beyond primary sources. Maybe I'm wrong, and it can be salvaged to be a factual, neutral article about 'green smoothie' in general rather than promoting this one product? But as it stands, it is quite promotional. Not convinced that Victoria Boutenko is notable, either - this seems like spam in disguise.  Chzz  ►  22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC


 * Keep This is not a brand-name product - that would be Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru and other junk-food drinks which all seem to have articles. A green smoothie is just a smoothie with lots of green stuff in - spinach, cress or whatever.  There seem to be plenty of sources which discuss this concept in detail and so it's as notable as carrot juice, grass jelly, gazpacho and other vegetable concoctions. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I would like to make this as factual and informative as possible. When discussing the discovery or history of green smoothies, there are only two people involved, which makes it difficult to mention a variety of sources. I find it hard to justify calling this subject a product, when anyone can make it themselves. Green smoothies and the high nutritional value of greens are a creditable topic. Please offer more constructive criticism so this article can can be as useful as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msemeb (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article makes specific health claims without adequate justification—that isn't at all encyclopedic. Prose is not neutral in tone. The sourcing and relevance of most of the "History" section is frankly atrocious. It talks about chimpanzees, fallaciously implying that because of genetic similarities, this is relevant to the human diet—then whips out Answers in Genesis to cite a fact about biology. And worse, it makes dubious claims of efficacy and offers offline and self-published sources as references. (Primary sources are appropriate for referencing an undisputed fact or event, but not appropriate for drawing a conclusion. Use independent, reliable, secondary sources instead.) And even if all of that were corrected, what distinguishes this smoothie recipe from all others that enjoy some popularity? Even if sourced reliably, and written well, this would only rate a merge (to smoothie). TheFeds 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I concur that this is not a brand-name product. However, it appears to be an inappropriately reverential treatment of the product—which is still poor form for Wikipedia. TheFeds 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Smoothie. Only one source is used that relates directly to the subject at hand, and that source is used to support POV claims. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a definition turned into an an article with POV claims about health. It seems it would be best to define the term in the main smoothie article. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And even there, someone might say a "green smoothie" is lime-flavoured, just like a "red smoothie" is probably strawberry-flavoured. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete While there are some reliable sources mixed in, they don't appear to support the main coatrack spam point of the article. The bulk is supported entirely by primary sources, so it fails WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep From the information in the 'health components' section it is clear that the properties of leafy greens make a green smoothie different from a regular smoothie,  'lime smoothie' or 'red smoothie'. Due to using a raw ingredient made of chlorophyl this subject is as significant as  wheatgrass, green drink and sprouting. The main point of the article is a beverage made with large amounts of blended greens. The nutritional values of greens is supported with secondary sources. msemeb (talk) 2:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There are 2120 different videos that appear when searching "Green smoothie" on Youtube, made by many different users. Some of them have over 100,000 views. The green smoothie is definitely a notable phenomenon. More sources have now been added to the article. User:Viriditasblossoming 3:50 p.m., 29 April 2010
 * This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See, Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, for similar reasons to why I nominated Tacos al Pastor three years ago. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Drinking BLENDED greens with fruit to assimilate the nutrients in leafy greens stands as its own topic. You could have 'greens' on their own, however that becomes a much larger and slightly different subject, for example, greens is also an environmental term.   Smoothie is a topic, but discussing the nutritional value of edible greens and why they need to be blended would not match the subject. The social prominence of the term 'green smoothies' also gives reason for these two topics to be combined.--msemeb(talk) 9:05, 28 April 2010


 * Keep The Green Smoothie has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Item includes significant references from reliable published sources such as Random House/North Atlantic Books, publishers of the "green smoothie revolution" book. Notability is evidenced by multiple websites and blogs dedicated entirely to the green smoothie, as well as several major recent books. Just a simple Google search makes it quite obvious, it's really beyond a recipe or group of recipes and actually a genre unto its own. Merging article into Smoothies would be somewhat akin to forcing Basketball be sequestered under Ball. Widespread notoriety, adoption and public discussion clearly warrants item's own entry. MrColombo (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * *Comment Notability of Victoria Boutenko is also hard to deny, as noted in the Random House-published bio of her latest cited book. MrColombo (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The two edits above are the only edits on Wikipedia by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * *Comment: It's clear that the notability is not understood by the majority of contributors in this AfD - that's why I jumped in and started contributing. After spending many hours studying the Wikipedia guidelines, it's clear this article meets the terms of preservation as described in WP:IMPERFECT. My intention is to make a positive contribution by way of incorporating necessary balance as called for in WP:NPOV and fixing problems as outlined in WP:PRESERVE, which I've already begun through several new edits, and which will clearly improve with the contribution of others over time. As a newcomer, I seem to be experiencing the WP:BITE ...
 * This comment posted by MrColombo, who is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See . Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep That the article is poorly written in terms of tone or pov is irrelevant, that can be fixed. There appear to be plenty of mainstream sources establishing notability. -- Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sounds horrific, but looking at Google News there are 13 stories about them in just the last month. Arguing that "Green smoothy" means the same as "a smoothy that is coloured green" is totally disingenuous and an abuse of language, they are a specified type of smoothy (and as has been pointed out do not need to be coloured green). The article might be poor, but we improve articles on notable topics, not delete them. As if the umpteen sources in the article aren't enough to demonstrate notability, here's a few articles: At the very least this deserves a section in another article, which would lead to a merger rather than wholesale deletion. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:55, 29 April 2010 (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.