Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schlabst

: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 redirect to Peter Wilt. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

=[[Schlabst]]=

:{{la|Schlabst}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Schlabst}})

This article's subject is not notable. Phearson (talk) 05:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect. I agree, that's why I turned it into a redirect to Peter Wilt before you nominated this. Actually, it looks like we probably mid-air-collided on this one. I'm not convinced Peter Wilt is notable, but the subject is mentioned there anyway, and redirects are cheap, so why not? Zachlipton (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

How is this not notable enough? The drink has its own website, there is a fest attached to it, one of the references was a Milwaukee Magazine article. Just how much do you need to be 'notable' enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.102.35.94 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirect is the right answer for this short article. --CliffC (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 22:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Redirect There is little content, little notability. If redirects weren't cheap then I would have commented delete. Royal broil 03:17, 20 February 2011 (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.