Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habanos S.A.

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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habanos S.A.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

a case of Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill lacks sufficient RS thus fails WP:COMPANY Dtt1^Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dtt1^Talk 14:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very hard to believe that the monopoly cigar exporter in by far the best-known cigar manufacturing country would not be notable. I've cited a couple of academic sources in the article. Plenty more are available. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just your run-of-the-mill state monopoly, eh? Coverage of it is often slightly tangential with their brands being the main focus, but I think it's quite clear that it has sufficient coverage [1][2][3] for this to be a keep. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, in case the closer is counting votes, my comment above is a keep. I prefer not to give a bolded opinion so early in a discussion, to give nominators the chance to save face by withdrawing when the issue is so obvious. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obviously satisfying corporate notability, or Speedy Keep 2, bad faith nomination to make a point. Nominator is blocked for one week for a complex issue of sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Misguided nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2020 (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.