Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semtex (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The result was   nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  06:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Semtex (drink)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. Brief coverage seems to come from the legal issues with Semtex, but this is more of a footnote for the explosive than for the drink. There is no significant coverage, and there is little hope of expanding this article past ingredients, sizes, and availability. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  00:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Articles in New York Times and Prague Post  provide significant coverage, and help to cover the not inconsiderable issue over the name. Other sources like, ,  can also be used to expand the article. It was banned in Russia , which should also be mentioned. It satisfies WP:GNG, and looks more like one of the most notable energy drinks rather than a non-notable one, and is the most notable Czech soft drink. There's every hope of expanding the article, and I'll do so over the next day or two. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article somewhat, hopefully establishing notability. Please let me know if more should be done. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Withdrawn - this is not the same stub that I nominated for deletion, well done Bretonbanquet. Sourcing now indicates sufficient notability, article now has content and clear context. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  23:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Those words are much appreciated. To be honest, had you not put it up for deletion it would probably never have been improved, as I had rather forgotten I'd ever started the article. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2012 (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.