Deletion of Sacred Chocolate

Comment: Fails |general notability standards. I'm finding only very limited coverage in |verifiable, third party sources as, for example, http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/can-chocolate-be-a-health-food-almost/article1214720/ this passing mention (scroll down to the 12th paragraph). Perhaps it is Wikipedia:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism|too soon for this company to have sufficient third party coverage? At best a merge to the founder's article, David_Wolfe_(nutritionist), but I see that one has its own sourcing issues
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:ITSSOURCED is not a valid reason to keep an article. The thing that defines the otability of a subject covered here is not just the quality of the source but the type of source. outine coverage in eliable sources does not confer notability to a subject, and a product review is the definition of routine coverage. As the majority of the sources fall under routine coverage or are rimary in nature, I see no notability in the subject. If you could find sources that meet the ourcing standards here, I would easily support its inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:R||WP:R||WP:P||WP:S)