Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brockmans Gin

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Brockmans Gin

Brockmans Gin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Newly-launched gin brand. Deleted several times as advertising. Spam content now removed, but what's left is "this is a new brand of gin." The sources cited are two articles that merely quote PR releases, and one blog. Notability not established by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and salt per nom andy (talk)
• Speedy Delete Spam! TopGearFreak 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The Harpers and Theme mag references seem to lend it a small amount of notability, though I'm not convinced it meets notability requirements.  LinguistAtLarge  17:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Delete refs are 1) a report of an advertising gimmick by the company, 2) a writeup that's not much more than a press release and 3) a blog. Not really enough for notability. Delete and lock the namespace for a few months until the company stops bothering us, then look again at notability. It's new and unknown know, but for we know it could take off. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete (G11) — Notable or not, this article is intended as blatant advertising, especially judging from the external link spam. MuZemike (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2008 (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.