Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy 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. Sandahl 01:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Healthy energy drink

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like some original material covering advertisement. I have a hard time seeing anything by this title being neutral. I have seen a fair bit of controversy regarding energy drinks and their possibly harmful effects, but that should be covered with reliable sources at Energy drink. Pekaje 23:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - as WP:OR, and not very accurate research either, e.g. how can an energy drink be low calorie? It's a contradiction in terms.  WebHamste r  23:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Healthy Energy Drinks get their title by using something other than sugar for the temporary "sugar high" that the old energy drinks had. B Vitamins are the very things the human body uses to use the energy already consumed, and does so naturally. Abnormally high amounts of caffeine are not only potentially harmful, but are known to produce dehydration, since caffeine is also a diuretic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.101.51 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.166.101.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Calories are not a measurement of sugar, it's a measurement of energy, ergo regardless of the energy source it still needs to be high in calories to supply the "energy". As I said, not very accurate research.  WebHamste r  10:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not sure if it is OR or spam due to the link in the text. Also, widely inaccurate in places, the drinks don't use sugar because that is bad, instead they use sucrose??? Whichever, this isn't a Wikipedia article. Nuttah68 07:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Ad spam.  The only "reference" provided links to a quasi-pseudoscientific "healthyenergydrink" ad site, and then on to a full-on sales web site dontgivemethatbull.com, which make essentially the same claims.  Obviously a smear campaign against Red Bull (even the coloration and styling on the ATC Energy Drink cans are similar to Red Bull's).  Approaches a CSD G11 criteria.  Also encroaches into NPOV and OR in the last two sentences, by first casually suggesting (and then casually denying) that drinking a typical sports or energy drink is like drinking "embalming fluid".  Classic drive-by hit-and-run and snake oil advertising method where one plants the desired thought, and then denies it in the fine print for legal purposes (What?  No!  Who said that?  Ha-ha!...). If there is anything encyclopedic, notable, neutral, and verifiable in the article, then it can be deposited at the Red Bull, Energy drink, or Sports drink pages.  --T-dot ( Talk/ contribs ) 12:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

All voters for delete should categorically deny with a yes or no the following : They are receiving kickbacks of any sort ( any benefit or money ) from any company, like a drink maker, whether they claim to produce "energy drinks" or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.166.57 (talk) 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC) — 172.132.166.57 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Come off it, there is no conspiracy. While I would like to get paid for this, I'm not. --Pekaje 15:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why just the voters for "keep", why not everyone, including you? Just to keep the playing field level of course. Or better yet, why not just you declaring your vested interests? The rest of us will maintain decorum and debate as adults.  WebHamste r  17:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as spam. No ability to get verifiable and independent sources. I have no conflict of interest. Bearian 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per part OR and part advertisement.--JForget 23:39, 16 September 2007 (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.