Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socko Energy

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. — TKD::Talk 01:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socko Energy

Socko Energy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable energy drink. Prod removed with no article improvement. The information about Hogan belongs on his page. Nikki311 13:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Dont you just love how people give you so little time to improve anything. People have lives outside wikipedia, ok well maybe some people dont but hey who are we to judge. It would be nice to be given more than a few miniutes to do something in. Dont you think people removed the prod so the article does not get deleted while they look for sources. How about a weeks grace, It wont kill anbody to have it up there. In fact it might even help. AFD is not a sub for article improvment. To many times people just go for the delete instetd of the many of other tags that there are. For example i saw a page that had been created and less than 5mins later it had been taged for SD geez guys help a brother out. Anywho this just shows that you need to be nice and think twice before submitting an article to AFDExtraDry 14:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It has been around since January 2007. How much time do you need? It does not appear to be notable. If you can improve3 it in the next 5 days, it should be kept. Spryde 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, or an edit summary explaining the intention to look for sources might be nice. Nikki311 17:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there's information, it's smothered in spam. And I refuse to accept "It wont kill anbody to have it up there" as a reason for an article in an encyclopedia; bandwidth costs money. Accounting4Taste 21:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As per stated above, I truly appreciate the idea of giving someone time to expand upon an article as I have wished for myself in the past. However, when we start articles such as this the writer should attempt to at least give us some real information in the article so that it can help a reader. That said, even if time was needed, again as stated above the article was created in January and nothing has been added to it and it does read mostly of advertising. For now I say delete it and if the user wants to come back with a more detailed start, then I'd support it staying.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not noteworthy. Also, the plea of the person asking for more time for completing or adding to this article has had ample time. The article was created in Jan 2007. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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.