Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Fuel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep Kotepho 08:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gay Fuel
"Gay fuel" energy drink gets under 600 ghits. There are no reliable sources cited. It is discussed on YTMND (surprise surprise) but there is no reference on Snopes. I call hoax, failing that non-notable. Just zis Guy you know? 08:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete as NN and possible hoax.Undecided Grafikm_fr 08:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)- Keep. Not sure why, but I get 90,500 hits for this on Google, not 600. [1] [2] [3] [4] If this is a hoax, it sure is an elaborate one given that it is cited in the Detroit Metro Times and was recently being auctioned off on eBay. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- You get fewer hits if you include the words energy drink. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per the Clown-fearing one. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per the above. I also get
95,000+ hits. It may be a hoax, but it's certainly notable. Badgerpatrol 15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Correction- Search ["Gay Fuel" energy drink] does indeed get only 606 hits. ["Gay Fuel"] gets 95,000+ however. Badgerpatrol 15:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Keep and expand, notable enough. bbx 17:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Non Notable. WP:NN Is this really notable? Gayfuel.com is owned by specialtyspirits.com who produced the homoerotic labeled Cabana Boy rum. It may be a real product. It seem to only be fuel for chuckling pundits, and bloggers. Dominick (TALK) 17:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, being from the D, I will say that Detroit Metro Times citing something isn't overwhelming evidence of notability. I'll spare you all my diatribe about how it actually used to be worthwhile reading material... Appears to have quite a few cites per Can't sleep, clown will eat me... just not sure if I consider those publications to meet WP:RS.--Isotope23 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete nn product from nn company. Does seem to exist though. Dlyons493 Talk 18:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- I haven't found any reviews of this product on the major beverage review sites (like BevNET). Also, in that BevNET category, there are a lot of energy drinks out there that have since been discontinued. I'm not sure if Gay Fuel's sales figures or longevity have been proven yet. I'm leaning toward delete on this one, but I'm not 100% convinced that it's non-notable. --Elkman - (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, per clown and his recent additions/citations.--Andrew c 21:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per above. VegaDark 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as advertising. Brian G. Crawford 00:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. How notable is this drink? The only reason I've heard of it is through Wikipedia's unusual articles. It was produced by some small bancrupt company which would no way be notable anyway, and so their funny little product isn't either. - Hahnchen 02:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!Grace Note 05:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- What does that even mean? Every ruddy drink isn't popular or notable, just like every supermarket product isn't worth having in an encylopedia nor is every drink. This drink is obviously produced by some random drinks company, is this even their flagship product? It's not like this is Ribena isn't it? So delete the thing. - Hahnchen 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- It means that a person who has not noted Hamlet cannot be counted on as a judge of what's notable. Every supermarket product is worth having an article on. What a fantastic concept! An encyclopaedia that contains every supermarket product. I'm glad to have the chance to work on something so ambitious, so wonderful. Grace Note 02:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- What does that even mean? Every ruddy drink isn't popular or notable, just like every supermarket product isn't worth having in an encylopedia nor is every drink. This drink is obviously produced by some random drinks company, is this even their flagship product? It's not like this is Ribena isn't it? So delete the thing. - Hahnchen 15:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep i've seen this product at clubs... its not a hoax. ALKIVAR™
20:51, 21 April 2006 (UTC) - Question Would any packaged drink you could buy at a single bar be suitably notable? (Probably not) 100 bars? 100,000? (almost certainly yes) I honestly don't know about this one. Do we have any sales figures for it? Do we have articles on every microbrewery for example? I'm convinced this is not a hoax. Any proof that it's influenced anything though? The articles given verify that it exists, but not that it's notable "enough". Hence my question. Anyone already determined how many beverage articles we have total? ++Lar: t/c 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- "How notable is this drink?" A new low. Keep, obviously. Grace Note 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Was that in reference to me? It seems a reasonable question. Some drink that someone canned 100 cans of on a lark and gave away to their friends presumably is not notable. Michelob presumably is. Somewhere in the middle is a dividing line. Where? 1 bar? 100 bars? 10,000 bars? And which side is this drink on? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If I drink it, I note it. End of discussion. Grace Note 05:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, realise that might be too cryptic. If there is a verifiable drink, it is "notable" is what I meant. Grace Note 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- And no, it wasn't directed to you (I used quotes because it was a quote, see?): you are indulging in angels and pins. You'd save yourself a great deal of anxiety by taking a more pragmatic view. Grace Note 05:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think my view is fairly pragmatic, and I'm not at all anxious about it. But I'd like to ask you perhaps to consider being a bit less cryptic if you can (your comment was right below mine, after all so it certainly seemed like it possibly was directed at me) and perhaps not quite as sarcastic. "It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!" as you said elsewhere just does not seem like it's adding a lot to this search for consensus, which turns on notability (I feel verifiability is satisified)... it's a legitimate question being asked. Show us how notable. How well does it sell? If it doesn't sell well, how much impact has it had in other ways? I'm coming around to "it's notable enough to merit a keep" but it's not because of your comments. I have found in the past that comments that might be perceived as combative undermine the case. People ask because they care. Even deletionists care. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If you feel verifiability is satisfied, only you know why you're still arguing about it with me. You must surely know that I, and many others, simply will never agree that a thing needs to be your or Hahnchen's idea of "notable" before it gets an article written on it here. Given that, it comes down to whether you are able to muster up sufficient votes for deletion to convince an admin to delete it. The notion that a good argument wins over many, many votes is laughable. Anyone who has made a good argument for keeping an article that was subsequently deleted knows that. Grace Note 02:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think my view is fairly pragmatic, and I'm not at all anxious about it. But I'd like to ask you perhaps to consider being a bit less cryptic if you can (your comment was right below mine, after all so it certainly seemed like it possibly was directed at me) and perhaps not quite as sarcastic. "It's not dreamt of in Hahnchen's philosophy so out it goes!" as you said elsewhere just does not seem like it's adding a lot to this search for consensus, which turns on notability (I feel verifiability is satisified)... it's a legitimate question being asked. Show us how notable. How well does it sell? If it doesn't sell well, how much impact has it had in other ways? I'm coming around to "it's notable enough to merit a keep" but it's not because of your comments. I have found in the past that comments that might be perceived as combative undermine the case. People ask because they care. Even deletionists care. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- And no, it wasn't directed to you (I used quotes because it was a quote, see?): you are indulging in angels and pins. You'd save yourself a great deal of anxiety by taking a more pragmatic view. Grace Note 05:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, realise that might be too cryptic. If there is a verifiable drink, it is "notable" is what I meant. Grace Note 05:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- If I drink it, I note it. End of discussion. Grace Note 05:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Was that in reference to me? It seems a reasonable question. Some drink that someone canned 100 cans of on a lark and gave away to their friends presumably is not notable. Michelob presumably is. Somewhere in the middle is a dividing line. Where? 1 bar? 100 bars? 10,000 bars? And which side is this drink on? ++Lar: t/c 05:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - On further examination, it's notable enough to satisfy me. Would still like to see more sources though. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per ALKIVAR. This crusade against YTMND and anything that has ever related to it must stop. Bubby the Tour G 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Since it exists only in your mind, the solution is for you to stop imaginign it - it will then go away :-) Just zis Guy you know? 21:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Comment Gay Fuel is actually very real. I haven't seen it myself, but [5] claims to be a distributor of the gay drink. Just look at these, eh, gay boys handing out samples here. [6] Not that I would actually drink it, but you know, gays would. I think we all need to take a big gulp of Gay Fuel right now. 6 pack for everybody. Bubby the Tour G 00:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, unverifiable outside its own website. Need more reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. "Popularity" is not a requirement for inclusion in an encyclopedia aiming to provide the complete sum of human knowledge. The subject is perfectly verifiable (through reliable sources, thank you) and we should, without question, be able to provide this information to the casually interested visitor. Silensor 04:00, 25 April 2006 (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.
![[6]](http://www.gayfueldelaware.info/assets/images/GayFuelBOYS.jpg){kind=link}