Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KickBar

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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted by Explicit, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

KickBar

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

A new product brand with no indication of notability (or even significance). bonadea contributions talk 09:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 09:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - had a go at rescuing this but it doesn't seem possible - hardly any reliable source coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable product. No independent reliable sources cited and I have been unable to find any substantial coverage. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – heavy use of primary sources in its history and a Google Search doesn't produce their product as the first 10 results. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously AfDed material. An article on this subject has been deleted earlier this month as Kick Natural Energy Bar. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kick Natural Energy Bar. I've requested a speedy deletion under G4; let's see if it takes. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd missed the previous discussion - careless of me. Thanks, K.e. It is (or will soon be) a G5 candidate as well, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jasperna. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 19 September 2017 (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.