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 No consensus; I've stubbed the article, which can't make up its mind whether it's about the company or the drink. However, some of the Google News hits are just about sufficient to not delete this. Black Kite 07:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go Fast[edit]

Go Fast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Fails WP:CORP. The subject has no coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Nv8200p talk 04:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable per nom. Advertising. --- Taroaldo (talk) 04:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is in need of extensive overhaul plus advert and cruft removal but subject has received some coverage in reliable secondary sources. I have personally seen the company profiled on both Current and CNN in the last year but the generic name renders a simple Google News search unwieldy. - Dravecky (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with above. Needs spam removal, but rough Google Search/News Search establishes enough non-trivial secondary source coverage for notability. Joshdboz (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all it would take is about 6% of these 50 Google news hits to not be press releases to establish notability. AnteaterZot (talk) 05:00, 7 April 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.