Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qube Base

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. Secret ^account 01:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qube Base

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

Article about an energy drink that doesn't show any notability. Unreferenced to reliable independent sources. Possible promotional intent, as article was created twice under different titles. Peridon (talk) 10:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 10. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 16:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Human comment: I followed the Twinkle procedure but TW got itself in a mess. Peridon (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any evidence through a Google search that this range of drinks have made any impact aside from the company's own promotional efforts. I hope they could justify the claim on their website to be the world's fastest growing energy drink should anybody care to complain to the ASA, but I would wish to see clear evidence of notability before accepting that any article about this company's products or indeed the company itself should appear in WP. There is such a thing as trying too hard. --AJHingston (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be vanity piece, no establishment of notability. Fails WP:GNG.--Rollins83 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any secondary sources about this company or their products on the Internet using a Google search. Delete, as not encyclopedically notable, unless such material is produced. --hydrox (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claims of notability, no sources. Alex^{discussion ★} 16:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources or anything stating why this subject should have a page on Wikipedia Verdict78 (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2013 (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.