Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeal Wellness 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. postdlf (talk) 04:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Zeal Wellness Drink

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this is one instance where the request for undeletion should probably have been denied, considering that the rationale was "it's useful". There's a clear lack of notability here and this is a pretty obvious spam article. The sources on the article are mostly links that discuss the various things that are in the drink and wouldn't show notability for the drink itself. The rest of the links are either primary sources (such as the PR posted on Yahoo) or links to sites that wouldn't be considered to be RS, let alone usable as a trivial source. I'd recommend a speedy again as sheer spam, but this has already been undeleted once and should probably go through a full AfD so that way it can stay deleted. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter   (gossip)  @ 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable, clearly promotional, and very poorly done.  I could add lots of tags, but why bother, if we agree on deletion.--DThomsen8 (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I couldn't find anything substantial on this product, Zurvita Inc (which, oddly enough, also seem to deal in deregulated energy markets), or this particular Mark Jarvis. Lots of blogspam, but nothing reliable. Having the article suggest, without any sources, that the product might be a health-hazard is really strange. I don't see anything worth saving here. Grayfell (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The writer had good intentions but Wikipedia is not the correct venue for publishing one's research essays on the effectiveness of a product's ingredients.-- Brainy J  ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 19:19, 24 August 2013 (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.