Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devil's Weed
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. PhilKnight (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Devil's Weed[edit]
AfDs for this article:
- Devil's Weed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A cigar company of dubious notability. Don't see how it meets the WP:CORP notability standard. The author has added references to the article, but as cigars isn't my area of expertise (not that i have any expertise) I'm unsure if the sources provided are reliable or whether they establish notability. I therefore remain neutral. I would like for other editors to decide this issue. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete blatant promotion of a not notable brand for SEO purposes Annette46 (talk) 02:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Annette46's reasoning, can't put it better than that. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 05:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:COMPANY and per Annette's comment, couldn't say any better.--SRX 20:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The brand has received recognition from secondary sources (look at updated Recognition section). The brand has distribution across the U.S. If you do not agree, please advise as to what other sources can help establish this brand as notable. Thanks! Lmolina21 (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating my vote, some of those recognitions aren't major, they do verify and recognize the company in someway, but it's not like other cigarette companies.SRX 00:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterate Delete even after rewrite it still smacks of WP:SPAM to me, and this is not a notable brand or a notable company. Annette46 (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment checked out the article again at a request on my talk page and I still agree with Annette46's comment. -- Darth Mike (Talk • Contribs) 08:55, 19 August 2008 (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.