Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ol' Widowmaker

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 of the debate was delete. Sango 123 (e) 02:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ol' Widowmaker[edit]

This seems to be flat out vanity. The product described isn't found in the top ten of Google in its own term, and does not seem to be notable by any stretch of the imagination. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 01:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 01:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete vanirt article _→AzaToth 01:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant vanity. Royboy crashfan 01:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Con Dem^Talk 01:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, also not big on one-paragraph entries. Danny Lilithborne 02:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brewers are all notable. Brews, however, are not. If the brewer had an article this could be merged there (anyone want to make one?) but since there is none, this stub must be deleted. NTK 03:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delte per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 03:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Metamagician3000 04:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cool name though ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable enough. If we have an article about the brewer, this can be briefly mentioned there. JIP | Talk 08:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gimme citations re praise for sweetness, etc. On second thoughts, don't. Colonel Tom 13:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without confirmation from the company this article is merely original%u2014oh wait, I agree with Colonel Tom and NTK —WAvegetarian•_{_{CONTRIBUTIONS}}^{^TALK}• ^{^EMAIL}• 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:35, 10 April 2006 (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.