Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holiday Hawk

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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Hawk

No notability. Being 'in a commercial' is not enough. ssepp^(talk) 18:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note I added this to the bottom of the deletion list initially. After realizing this is wrong, I have moved it to the top. I am sorry for any inconvenience. ssepp^(talk) 21:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as uncivilly as possible. Wikipedia is not a marketing department. DarkAudit 18:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable idea from a commercial. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable gimmick from a single ad campaign. --Haemo 22:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - very non notable , as per above.
Delete Article is non-notable, and borders on advertising. --Nehrams2020 06:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have to wonder what DarkAudit's "as uncivilly as possible" means. Article may have been contributed in good faith by somebody who likes hawks, or sierra mist, or just liked the commercial. Whatever...this hawk does not need an encyclopedia article.—Gaff ^ταλκ 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it looks like spam, and tastes like spam, then it's probably spam. The PR flacks and viral marketers have been assaulting Wikipedia with increasing frequency, showing no remorse for their actions. At some point good faith needs to be set aside when dealing with those who would try to bend Wikipedia to their own ends as an advertising tool. DarkAudit 13:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:04, 2 June 2007 (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.