Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Fuel (3rd nomination)


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Gay Fuel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is very little substantial coverage of this product that I'm finding on Google -- mostly Knowyourmeme and that sort of thing. Doesn't appear to be notable beyond some amount of novelty value. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. By searching "Gay Fuel energy drink," I found passing mentions here; here; and, an even more passing mention, when searching "Gay Fuel" in gScholar, here. I couldn't find, in a current search using the term "Gay Fuel", articles cited in the first AFD, including [ http://www.wnd.com/2004/07/25409/ this] and this, which still come up when launching the old links in AFD No.1. Even so, the sum and breadth of the coverage is not enough to meet notability requirements in general (WP:GNG). Geoff &#124; Who, me? 20:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Source assessment:
 * Delete. Lack of substantial coverage. The market for such a drink was small and most new products fail. The odds for this failed product succeeding was stacked against it from the beginning.Knox490 (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've tried to source this including digging in the history for lost sources that might have made editors !vote keep in the past. I don't see we have significant coverage to warrant inclusion under GNG, cf. assessment below. Sam Sailor 15:24, 28 January 2018 (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.