Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave 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   keep. Reasons to keep prevail here in my opinion. Article needs some work, though. Tone 15:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wave Energy Drink

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)


 * Delete. Unremarkable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In 5 minutes I easily found reliable sources about the drink: this is excellent, this one too, this is an okay source for the NASCAR info, very good, a GOLDEN source from a business magazine. I found these all in the first 2 pages on google.  Royal broil  01:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, add the sources, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The contributor who started the article asked what needs to happen to keep the article. I didn't add the sources because he needs to learn how to do it himself and this is the best way to force him to do it. Having him learn how to do it right should save time in the long run. I see a bunch of deletion warnings on his talk page.  Royal broil  12:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete just another energy drink. no matter how many sources exist, it is just another plain unexceptional energy drink. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Keep Those that are trying to delete this page need to READ the article. It is a NASCAR Sprint Cup sponsor. This in itself is plenty of reason for it to have an article on Wikipedia. As for it being "just another energy drink", the numerous other energy drinks all have articles. Why should this one not have one?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * keep ... the article can be improved, but the reliable sources exist now, and they will continue to improve. Not that this is a great article, but the sources confirm notability per our policies and guidelines. — Ched :  ?  02:35, 22 December 2009 (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.