Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky's Fine Cigars

This was speedied whilst on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars. However, WP:DRV decided that was out-of-process and wanted the debate to conclude naturally. Since it's been several days, I'm just starting a new one. Don't speedy it this time, mmmkay? -Splash^talk 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has just 36 unique Google hits, nearly all of which are yellow pages listings or mirrors of the last AfD. No website, no media coverage, no suggestion that this is any kind of local landmark or tourist attraction, no nothin'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As-Speedy-As-Delete-Can-Be-Without-Being-Speedy Looks like pure advertisement to me. --Bugturd 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable organisation. No indication that this cigar store meets WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP isn't a Criterion for Speedy Deletion. Ikkyu2 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regular Delete. Not notable. Youngamerican 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not a speedy delete advert, nn --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP isn't a Criterion for Speedy Deletion. Ikkyu2 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just one shop, not notable -- Astrokey44|talk 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were 'Smoky's Fine Cigar Club', it'd be speediable under CSD A7. -Ikkyu2 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time this had 12 delete votes (which should still count IMO) and 0 keeps. If those numbers had been reversed it woul dhave been closed as a speedy keep. Never should have been undeleted. -R. fiend 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't yet have a speedy criterion for advertising and it certainly qualifies as a minimal stub. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost a textbook example of a non-notable cigar shop. JIP | Talk 12:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. See no reason this shouldn't be a speedy, as a non-notable company. Robin Johnson 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Articles about non-notable companies can't be speedied under the WP:CSD. -Ikkyu2 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not even as "unremarkable people or groups" (A7)? Robin Johnson 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the consensus is that a company is not the same as a group of people. For instance, in addition to the proprietor(s), there is a building, an address, a business license, tax filings, an inventory, et cetera. Again, I'd argue this points out a flaw with the CSD, not with the deletion of this article. Ikkyu2 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, non-notable. Also at the moment there is no information in this article that is verifiable as no citation of any sort is provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete, don't let the bureaucrats win. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a firm smack to the back of WP:DRV's head for making us jump through this hoop. Lord Bob 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought I nominated this for deletion a week ago! Re-delete...nonnotable cigar shop; any reincarnation of the entry would have to include something like a cigar-related Nun Bun (oh! the Nun Bun isn't wikiworthy either?!). --Gopple 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now we have 16 deletes and no keeps. If someone were to close it early this time, I wonder if anyone would still cry foul, saying it wasn't given a full chance. Probably not worth finding out, though I am curious how much slaves to policy we're going to be forced to be. -R. fiend 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone cares, I think this is completely ridiculous. CSD A7 needs an overhaul. Ikkyu2 05:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I wonder how much Smoky would pay Jimbo to have a little infobox linking to his shop, at the top of the Cigar article? Ikkyu2 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - R. fiend, there's absolutely no urgency about a delete. IMHO there's never any urgency as long as an article is sitting there with a big, bad, brightly colored deletion box that everyone can see. In principle, I support the five-day waiting period, since not everyone logs in every day, and since five days gives people a reasonable chance to raise objections and/or improve the article. In this particular case, I happen to think WP:SNOW applies, but there's no reason or need to give the überinclusionists ammunition for another DRV listing. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, and I'm not about to close it as a speedy, nor do I encourage anyone else to. I was just hypothesizing aloud. The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. -R. fiend 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dogpile! Delete. Geez. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Becha weren't expecting that one huh? Common; can't a guy think different?? It's going to be deleted anyway :) —akghetto ^talk 10:06, 3 February 2006 (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.