Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Enuf

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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Enuf

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

Real product, possibly popular, not notable. There is no significant coverage. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what bollocks. First I see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solo (Norwegian soft drink) and now this too?--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I just added 10 good references, it took me 15 minutes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added by Milowent. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: well done article, referenced, not an advert. Does not meet reasons for deletion. Techsquid (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Milowent's additions; significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Gongshow ^Talk 00:06, 8 March 2012 (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.