Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Estate

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. A Train^talk 09:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Estate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable cigar brand, self-moved into mainspace by creator. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mark the train^Discuss 17:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: the article's only citation is self-published. It doesn't indicate that the brand has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that suggest it passes corporate notability standards, nor can I find any myself. It's quite strange that a seven-year-old userspace draft has just been moved into the mainspace like that, luckily the edit filter caught it which is how I presume Jcc found it? DrStrauss talk 17:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DrStrauss: Yep- exactly that :) jcc (tea and biscuits) 19:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original author, forgot I had made it back in the day and decided, based on a suggestion on its talk page that it seemed nearly ready for publication, to put it up. I understand the references are self published but its ACID brand of cigars are pretty popular, to the point that they even have a cigarillo version available at most gas stations (at least here in central Ohio.) It was my first attempt at a new article and not just edits and the information is all factual. Here is a recent news article referencing the brand: https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/19573 (W.A.A. IV (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak keep: Not sure what the threshold is for a cigar brand to be notable, and this article's creator needs a WP:TROUT for using a single self-pub source, but I'm finding additional sources that indicate notability, or at least that it's a legit company. If someone wants to try a WP:HEY and save this article, try adding content from these sites. Montanabw^(talk) 05:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC): Another Cigar Aficionado article, interview, ad description from a supplier, review.[reply]

Those sources aren't sufficient- the review is from what looks to be a self-published source, and the ad description from a supplier is exactly that- it'd be like claiming an Amazon listing is sufficient for notability. The Cigar Aficionado article is the only acceptable source but "demonstrating that it's a legit company" is not equivalent to notability. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a WP:Promo page on an unremarkable cigar brand; significant RS coverage not found. The article is cited exclusively to the company's own web site; there's not even an attempt to make the article presentable. Basically, corporate spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2017 (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.