Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TrimWater

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. ChetblongT C 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TrimWater

TrimWater (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Previously speedy-deleted several times as spam. It's arguably no longer spam, but I don't see any indication that this product is notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. I didn't see the earlier incarnations, but this is definitely still spam IMO. Speedy delete and protect it. Ros0709 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per G11 - I think a healthy dose of salt may be in order as well. EJF (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of notability, no outside references: pictures of celebrities holding the drink don't count.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Why not just edit the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sugarisbad (talk • contribs) 22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not quite G11 this time, but still nothing notable at all; no third party sources to be seen. I also recommend salting this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above reasons and turn it into saltwater. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Saltwater might be the best course of action if this continues. RFerreira (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I'm less charitable and think it's WP:SPAM as well as being non-notable; the unreferenced claim of being "unique" is what tips it for me. And I wonder if Hayden Panettiere's lawyers have seen this photo and caption? Accounting4Taste:talk 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Seems like kind of a cryptic statement. What about the photo and caption do you think her lawyers would be interested in? --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies if I seemed cryptic. It doesn't seem likely to me that she has actually endorsed this product but the photograph and its caption gave me the impression that she has done so. I was sufficiently curious to check, since I know she has another national campaign running for a facial soap product, and I can't find any other indication that she has endorsed the product. As I understand it, the US legal system is very stern about such suggestions of endorsement on the part of a celebrity and she would have a cause of action should she choose to exercise it. I am not a lawyer in the US so these are merely my understandings from my reading, but I think the cause of action would be worth pursuing in Canada. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. That didn't occur to me as I hadn't interpreted the photo as implying an endorsement, but I can see where you're coming from now that you say it. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Per G11 loosely, but certainly non notable. Canyouhearmenow 23:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - No notability asserted. I'm not finding much as far as third party references go. --Onorem♠Dil 12:38, 21 February 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.