Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W Ketchup


 * 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. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

W Ketchup

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Delete. The jokes over, and this fails the notability test.  Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. What joke?  It's a real brand, it's still being made, and it gained plenty of notability when it was launched.  Does a brand have to keep making a quota of press appearances every year in order to remain notable? -- Zsero (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep BBC articles mean you are being important. --President of Internets (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Received only incidental coverage after its introduction, never received any other coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No. This was a one off product from a one off election. Not notable --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 19:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That is simply false. It was not a one-off product; it's still in production five years later. -- Zsero (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WngLdr34. Not notable meaning it received spartan coverage when it was first introduced and then never again.  It was not really notable in the beginning and it doesn't appear to be notable now, either.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  22:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. wow, i missed this product entirely. aside from problems with the article (mentioning the W is also bushes middle initial without reference would have to be removed, no matter how obvious it is, and reiterating the companies press material without also quoting the heinz press release directly is unbalanced), the references dont support notability. yes, it did get media coverage upon its release, and inspired a press release from heinz. and if its initial notability had any impact, it would deserve an article, as notability, once its established as more than News, doesnt fade with time, only public awareness fades with time. but i really dont see this product having left a mark of historic notability. the election didnt turn on it, it didnt enter the public lexicon, the product doesnt stand out in the market significantly, it didnt change corporate policy towards manufacturing in the US. A lot of news stories tied to elections get more coverage than they deserve, often for the fun of it or to fill news cycles. and press releases are easy enough to create. I would be swayed if someone could find sources showing their lasting legacy as a UNIQUE product, not just another ketchup.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Recentism article that slipped through the cracks. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete May have been notable at one time, but as time passes there is no coverage or other commentray. Thus it fails WP:N Transmissionelement (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Apparently a real product for people who want to order a minimum of four bottles of ketchup online for $17.95 plus shipping and handling, and a portion of the profits go to charity. Or, you could donate twenty dollars to the charity.  About as trendy as spinning hubcaps, and this one's 15 minutes of fame ended five years ago.  Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2009 (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.