Deletion of Green smoothie

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)