Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purifying 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 of the debate was Delete. The article has no sources, failing the policy at WP:V, and the consensus in this discussion is to delete. Hiding Talk 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purifying Drink

Possible Advertisement, little context (Purifying drinks are controversial lifestyle beverages) NMChico24 01:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Delete seems like a neologistic name for hang over cures. Perhaps if it was sourced better shown to be widely used and notable and in encyclopedic style? Definately nix the advert.--Nick Y. 01:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - this one puzzles me. Sounds like a generic sort of drink but only 7 Google hits and none for the branded drink. Should be deleted unless someone comes up with some good sources PDQ. BlueValour 01:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. --Coredesat 01:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources, reads like an ad, possible for this product? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:V Jammo (SM247) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete... so controversial, no-one's ever heard of it... --^Triana_C 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Perhaps if we've never heard of a described product type and it doesn't exist on the internet, it's not real!? Luckily neither is the case. If this were an advertisement, I would then label it as weak, a weak (possibly counterproductive) advertisement. I prefer to research things before commenting, let alone taking the time to actually add a wiki. A quick YAHOO on *purifying drink* brings up the official website of the said American product, and a YAHOO on *soberade* brings up about a dozen of the European versions of the described product type. Another easily obtained widley distributed news article shows how a french version of the product type was banned from France (aka controversial). Of course REDBULL and TUARINE were also banned in the U.S. in '92, although that didn't last very long obviously. If Wiki were around in the early 90's it may have been a bit pretentious to delete the *energy drink* entry, just because no one knew of this phenom product type in the states for years after it had arrived. I suppose we could delete all new, underground or relatively unknown product categories until they are readily available at WalMart or MTV breaks a big story on them, but I dont have that kind of time, and it seems very anti-wiki to me. --Cadillacula 00:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Re-creating Okay based on the above comments I am recreating the Purifying Drink article, void of a specific product name or example. It simply describes a product category. Please refrain from saying the product type or category doesn't exist... simple type in "purifying drink" or "SOBERADE" into YAHOO and browse through a dozen products on the market or so that lower B.A.C. - Wiki users deserve to be aware of such products, wether popular or not. Order the products via their respective online stores for even further physical proof.
  • Lastly, if one 10 word sentence of the Purifying Drink was a source of issue... why will no one petition the following far more blatant and detailed advertisements for deletion?: Rockstar Energy Drink, Monster Energy Drink(search), Von Dutch Energy Drink(search)... Before an article about a product type (Purifying Drink) is again brought under fire, I feel one must explain why the previously mentioned advertisements on specific product brands are allowed to exist unscathed. Fair enough?--Cadillacula 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google is the search engine of choice and produces 7 hits, none of them comvincing, for 'Purifying drinks' and 1 for 'soberades'. Two of the drinks that you specify have no WP article and Rockstar is factual, exists, and makes no claims. BlueValour 22:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Google is the search engine of whose choice exactly? KEEP - it's now a non brand-specific nuetral and new (to some?) broad product category/type description. Oh dear, I wonder if this is what it was like for the first man who discovered fire and tried to bring it back to his tribe. I am not sure why my research is proving far more effective than a few of the others here, it seems so simple. Next time you are conducting extensive research on the said product type with your *search engine of choice* try OUTOX, DTOX, BANGOUT drink, SECURITY FEEL BETTER, SOBERGUARD, NOTOX drink, the list goes on. Real products you can purchase and consume, right now. I apologize if I am the first one to expose this product category to the known world. All very convincing as 'purifying drinks' and 'soberades'. Again I ask if something is not instantly evident in someone’s quick off the cuff internet search does this mean its not real or its presence shouldn't be felt on Wiki. Is it inconcievable that a piece of new knowledge be made more readily accesible to a Wiki user than to a Google user? My point is clearly not to advertise any brands (unlike the dozens of *energy drink* Wiki entries) only the CATEGORY. Contrary to someone elses findings, two of the ENERGY drinks I specified (Monster Energy Drink and Von Dutch Energy Drink) do indeed have WP articles which read like true advertisements, however for whatever fault of the Wiki system, they only show when you do a specific search and click on their 100% relevant listing, as I thought I clearly indicated by putting the word SEARCH after I mentioned each of them (see *Lastly* above). Rockstar is factual, exists, and makes unproven claims to boost energy, mind and spirit with special ingredients, it is also far more of a specific brand advertisement (posted by its founder) than a quick article about a new type of drink category. Entry has been modified--Cadillacula 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete? On the other hand the following article, for example, is an advertisement: Rockstar Energy Drink, most likely posted by the noted guerilla style marketer Russell Goldencloud Weiner. While contrastly the Purifying Drink article in question appears to simply be about a product category, though a fairly new one (to the U.S.) indeed.--Cadillacula 01:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - The key point is that this product may not actually exist. With no Google hits to speak of and no sourcing an article is not justified. BlueValour 01:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Purifying Delete WP:AD ~ trialsanderrors 01:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Turns out good old Yahoo! search brings up the website: (NSFW). ~ trialsanderrors 02:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising, and express surprise that the above-mentioned Rockstar ad was kept at AfD, since that indeed reads a lot like an ad. Tony Fox (speak) 03:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, POV. Like the website photo, though. Tychocat 11:26, 25 June 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.