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. Tough call with some good arguments for deletion... but with such a high level of participation we can't ignore all of those keeps... the deletion policy advises to give the benefit of the doubt to keep, and the procedural concern raised about this AfD being nominated too soon after the last one is valid. JERRY ^talk _contribs 06:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four (drink)[edit]

Four (drink) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This page was nominated for deletion before and barely survived. It doesn't meet notability, that's all I can say. Lady Galaxy 02:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article has references to demonstrate notability, and it is too soon to start a new AfD, since the previous one was closed on 21 January 2008. --Eastmain (talk) 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would think it is a bit too soon to open another AfD, having said that I would expect that this article be improved because I can see it being nominated again if it isn't deleted in this AfD. I'm also a bit surprised it survived the first AfD. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

I have to agree with that, actually. Lady Galaxy 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If you actually had any new evidence that the sources provided aren't notable, then I would consider this a useful nomination. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense. The sources are supposed to prove notability. In this case, they don't. Burden of proof is on the people claiming that it is notable. Mr.Z-man 07:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that whether "barely" or not, the article passed AFD LESS THAN 10 DAYS AGO. You can't keep renominating articles until you get the result you want. If you really feel offended that this article exists, there are appeal procedures you can follow, or wait 6 months and nominate again if you feel the article still doesn't qualify. 23skidoo (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Far too soon. Maxamegalon2000 07:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - purely for procedural reasons. Sorry, LadyGalaxy. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the close should have been sent to WP:DRV first, as I saw consensus to delete, but now that it's here, it's still have serious sourcing issues, the two sources are still press releases that fails our sourcing guidelines and our notabilty guidelines. I really want the keeps to reconsider. Secret ^account 00:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't believe the too soon votes hold weight in this case, since the previous afd was very iffy on the close. I would've preferred this went to drv as opposed to a second afd though. Wizardman 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources given include a blog and a press release in an industry-specific publication. This could easily become notable at some point--alcopops are quite popular in the UK, for instance. Need to have a reliable independent source (or three) which writes about the product. For now, the article is little more than an advert for a product which is not (yet) notable. As far as the previous AfD, it was closed as no consensus, when the only Keep came from the person who added the thin sourcing--a relist would have been more appropriate at the time. Yes, this could have gone to DRV, but I think the suggestion that we keep just because the previous AfD was so recent is flawed. It's similar to AfD arguments of (too soon, not enough edits, too soon after failed). WP:CORP is not satisfied by the article in its current state. 00:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep for now until Phusion Projects Inc. is created. When it is, merging Four (drink) into that page would probably be the best option. « D. Trebbien (talk) 04:50 2008 February 4 (UTC)
  • Is there evidence that that company is notable? It might never get an article. Mr.Z-man 07:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Discrepancy between manufacturer in article (Phusion Projects Inc.) and manufacturer reported on the beverage's home page (Drink Four Brewing Co.), the latter of which has only 14 Ghits. That aside, article does not satisfy WP:N requirement of "receiv[ing] significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Eastmain and Nousernamesleft. --Oldak Quill 02:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Weak delete'; unless someone finds and adds some information about its market share or how well it is known. it was introduced in 2006, & if it hasn't gotten noticed by now, it never will be. DGG (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Too soon. —  X  S  G  04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no sources to indicate notability and to cancel out "procedural keep votes" that aren't based in policy. Mr.Z-man 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This isn't a drink I care for, but I do believe that people would like to turn to Wikipedia for neutral information about this beverage. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give a policy based reason please?, same with all the too soon comments. Secretalt (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Gavin Collins (talk) 12:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not sure why this article was not deleted last time. A press release and drinks directory were added as 'sources', but they cannot be classed as reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, the article provides insufficient content, context or analysis to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not a press release, but rather an article that appeared in Convenience Store News (which, like many articles, uses a press release as a source). Another link to the same article can be found on the magazine's webste at http://www.csnews.com/csn/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001806489 --Eastmain (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Used a press release as a source, that explains it all. Secretalt (talk) 15:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Press releases as sources are not a good idea. This article now fails WP:SPAM as well. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.