Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Powerking (2nd nomination)

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:45, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Powerking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Already soft deleted once in 2012 (not eligible for G4), the only non-primary source that is given this time is [1] which is far from being in-depth. With a WP:BEFORE, the only additional source I found is [2], of which I'm not sure of the reliability. Not very optimistic for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It is certainly a well-known product in Northern Europe, but I was not able to find significant coverage of it online. Only sales sites and forum discussions. Something might be buried somewhere, maybe in trade press. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. At this point no one has challenged the deletion rationale, but there is little participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A passing mention in an energy drink review is the only reliable source I can find mentioning this product. Even the Swedish and Finnish Wikipedias, where the product is more popular, don't have an expanded range of sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jordano⁵³ 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. I searched in both Finnish and Swedish, but could only find retailer product listings and similar, nothing that would come even close to satisfying the GNG standard. Yes, it's a reasonably well-known product in those countries, but that's not a notability criterion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (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.