Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZOIC Nutrition 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

ZOIC Nutrition Drink

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Okay, so this is a long one, bear with me. The article was created as a disambiguation page, which linked to various things with Zoic in it, and linked OFF wikipedia to the website for the Zoic Nutrition Drink co, which is the subject of the name of the article. I do not feel that established notability, so I changed the page's disambiguation to that of Zoic (as in established articles on wikipedia and related sister project). Therefore, as ZOIC nutritional drink's notability has not been established, I feel that this page, which is a disambiguation page for a not yet established article should be deleted, as there already is a Zoic disambiguation page, and the subject in question has not been established as notable enough to warrant mention in the disambig. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Disambiguation pages are for links to articles, not for links to web pages. Given that this page is just an exact duplicate of the disambig page for "Zoic" with a new name, it should just be removed as it serves no purpose whatsoever. Rnb (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that I was the one who made it a copy of the Zoic disambiguation page because the original version of this page, which was a disambiguation page, had links to other sites. I do agree that it should be deleted, as in eliminating spam links, there is no use for this article, which is a duplicate of the same page with a different name. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per CSD G11 (this is probably going to require about as much explanation as the nomination {). I'm not sure why this is even a disambiguation page, it seems highly unlikely that someone looking for Zoic Studios would type "ZOIC Nutrition Drink" into the search bar.  Therefore, it seems to me that the real reason that this page exists is only to link off-wiki to the drink's website (and in previous versions, to various commercial websites), which if that is the case, is spamming and qualifies the article for speedy deletion. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the drink is considered non-notable, then the correct speedy criterion is A3 - no content. Once the non-notable description is removed, the page consists of nothing but external links. If the drink is notable, then the links should be removed. I believe that the drink is notable (it being the first product of this type to earn Heart Association approval, and so on). - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that would be A1; A3 apply more to linkfarms with no article content. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per being the first product of this type to earn Heart Association approval. - Mgm|(talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the significance of that certification? Does being the first such product to be certified make it notable? TheFeds 18:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the organization doing the certifying is itself notable in the field it is certifying, yes. - Mgm|(talk) 23:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought notability wasn't contagious, but.... &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For example, we don't list every UL-listed product, just because UL is notable. I don't think that that particular certification is standalone evidence of notability. TheFeds 04:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep — I don't think this is blatant spamming. It's covered in a trade publication, and there should be others out there. It barely meets notability standards. MuZemike  ( talk ) 18:06, 8 December 2008 (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.