This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[blue #1]]
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This reads like a well writen article, it includes origins and contraversy over the drink. I think the deletion flag is unwarrented. Im not sure about the specific policy but even if it was more like a ad, i think it should be set for a normal vote based deletion. That would ensure objectivity. In summation, I believe this is much more than a product ad, even though you wouldn't catch me drinking it ZyMOS (talk) 06:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Fair enough. I only tag them for speedy delete. An Admin declined deletion so if its good enough for them. So I guess I was a bit hasty. Sting_auTalk 06:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Wow! Article went from creation to well written, referenced and with a table in less than two days. I agree that given the controversy, particularly the USA Today article, it passes notability. WLU (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks in no small part to you. It has certainly come a long way since I first tagged it with a speedy. I do a few newpage patrols when I'm in the mood, and I can only go on what I see first up. Sting_auTalk 21:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
Agreed, I'm awesome. I will point out that even the first version, from what I can see, would have passed WP:N and WP:CORP based on the USA Today article alone in my opinion. WLU (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply