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 keep. Whether a product is/was successful or a complete failure does not affect its notability, nor for that matter whether it is still in sale. It would really helps if keep !voters put in the sources that are obviously there into the article rather than just point *hey look there*, but nevertheless their arguments does have a basis from glances at Google. KTC (talk) 12:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Ice[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was this ever really notable? p b p 20:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but source (or if deleted, without prejudice to recreation with proper sourcing) — passes GNG and WP:CORP due to widespread major mentions in mainstream publications over time. It's a real brand that had real promotion, distribution, and sales, even if a minor one. Admittedly, nobody would care if it were not Donald Trump. If it is part of a Trump family of similar retail brands, or if the maker also licenses other famous names, it could also be merged into a group article listing multiple brands. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - receives significant coverage in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep if it can be improved somewhat more or also simply redirect to his article. SwisterTwister talk 06:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused by the Keep votes saying there are sources. What sources? The article has none, and none have been provided in this AfD. -- GreenC 18:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't base your vote on the article itself. Click the "find sources" link above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What sources show this is a notable business? -- GreenC 18:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a business. It's a product. Look at all the sources concerning the "care package" Trump recently sent to Marco Rubio. That's not even the half of it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Ice was a company (Google "Trump Ice LLC") selling a product under the same name. Water bottles to Rubio sounds like a case of NOTNEWS cycle.. are there any sources about the company or its product? -- GreenC 19:57, 5 November 2015 (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.