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. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 21:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demon Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable energy drink brand, unsourced. It gets a few passing mentions in New Zealand news, but no significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Devon Energy as ((R from misspelling)). feminist (+) 16:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Changed to keep.[reply]
  • Why? There is no relation between the soft drink and Devon Energy on any level NealeWellington (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really see this as a logical outcome either; it's not a likely typo, and would mostly just confuse readers who are looking for the energy drink (the article does get a handful of views every day) and now end up at a completely unrelated article. Lennart97 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the coverage of the drink in the Polish market. The Telegraph and Natemat sources added by NemesisAT, plus an opinion piece in The Spectator, push this beyond WP:GNG. feminist (+) 03:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the Spectator article again, it doesn't really provide much analysis so it should probably be discounted. However, the NZ Herald sources added to the article are reliable and significant, so this remains a "keep" for me. feminist (+) 15:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I've added some sources to the article, including an article from The Daily Telegraph. The brand has attracted attention in Poland and I feel WP:SIGCOV is met. NemesisAT (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG and doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV unless advertising counts. NealeWellington (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Articles like this are clearly not advertising. NemesisAT (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  NemesisAT, first of all, thank you for adding these sources! I agree the Telegraph article counts as significant coverage. The FoodBev piece does not, and Blabbermouth is borderline. That leaves the two Polish articles which are hard to tell for me; what kind of websites are these? Apart from that, I wonder if we can base an article about the energy drink completely on sources reporting on one particular controversy, as the controversy itself would not be notable per WP:NOTNEWS. Lennart97 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The first of the Polish sources is from hurtidetal.pl, which appears to be a trade magazine ("Hurt i Detal" translates to "Wholesale and Retail") and you can read about the second at natemat.pl. At first glance these seem to be borderline as far as reliability goes - the first because trade magazines tend to be dominated by their advertisers and Na Temat publishes both editorial content and blogs. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for this, on analysis of the natemat.pl article, it appears to be an article not a blog, as it isn't within the "Blogs" section. Though this could be wrong, I'm relying on machine translation. I think the sources can still be used to establish an article as WP:NOTNEWS seems to be more about events whereas this article is about the drink itself and not an event. NemesisAT (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My reasoning is that if an event (the Poland controversy) is not notable per NOTNEWS, then neither is a company/product whose sole claim to notability is said event. The natemat.pl goes a bit beyond the controversy, but altogether there's still a lack of reliably sourced basic information on the company itself. I did find this from the NZ Herald, by the way, but it also doesn't quite amount to significant coverage, as it's just about another not particularly notable controversy that the company found itself involved in. Lennart97 (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a couple more references from the paper you shared, thanks for that. I think we now have enough sources without relying on the controversy in Poland? NemesisAT (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be enough altogether, I'd be alright with keeping at this point. Quite the controversial company, that's for sure :) Thanks again for your efforts! Lennart97 (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think a couple of minor events, albeit in a reliable source some almost 10 years ago, give this article enough credibility to be retained. I suggest that the article fails on the grounds that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There has been no further interest in the product since then. NealeWellington (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Once notable, always notable. Notability doesn't go away with time. NemesisAT (talk) 14:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While that is true this article fails to meet notability on the basis of WP:INDISCRIMINATE NealeWellington (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of WP:INDISCRIMINATE do you feel this article falls under? NemesisAT (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added more material from NZ media about its advertising and food safety record. This combined with the existing material is enough to meet GNG. --IdiotSavant (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2021 (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.