Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweet Revenge - Wild Strawberry Sour Mash

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Revenge - Wild Strawberry Sour Mash[edit]

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

Article has no indications of notability; vaguely, though not overtly, promotional, once the copyrighted promotional material was taken out. (PROD declined.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - not needed. ~ ⇒TomTom N00 @ 18:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing indicating notability.JoelWhy (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - advertisement for non-notable new product, created by an account (since blocked) with the name of their advertising slogan. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with others, pure advert. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Delete No evidence of notability. Gnews turns up only the WP article. General Gsearch turns up only the product website, twitter feed and trademark reports. Creation by now-blocked SPA. This is just blatant advertising. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Cagoul (talk) 23:47, 6 April 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.