Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked (energy drink)

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked (energy drink)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rejected CSD#G11. Nothing but an ingredient list. No evidence of notability. Where is CSD#A7 for products? The-Pope (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PRODUCT. WWGB (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Energy drinks is a recognised category. As long as the article is not a blatant advert it shoud be kept for possible expansion and appropriate tags should be aded. Other articles in this cat also have little more content. See 180 (drink). (BTW, I do know about WP:OTHERSTUFF ! ) --Kudpung (talk) 04:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Show me where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and I'll withdraw the nomination. Every product that is sold does not deserve an article here, even if a suitable category exists. And notability isn't temporary, and despite this project not having a deadline, I'm sick of tagging and waiting for others to improve - in 99% of cases, it never happens. Read WP:PRODUCT too, whilst you are researching what does and doesn't belong here.The-Pope (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it does fail WP:PRODUCT. Jenks24 (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.