Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maya (cigarette)

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maya (cigarette)

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

Fails GNG.No notable covg. across reliable sources.Promo-stuff. Winged Blades^Godric 09:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the creator of the wiki here.

I think the Wiki should not be deleted, and here is why I believe that. - The Wikipedia article does not purely exist out of advertising sources. It is a mix of the recognition that the brand is, in fact, owned by Landewyck Tobacco, the places where the brand is sold, and the advertisement posters and other accesories. - The Wikipedia article is not written out in a biased way, like what I have witnessed in several other pages. The page is written in a neutral point of view, with the advertisement part only partaking a small part of the rest of the Wikipedia. - The Wikipedia article has mainly the advert sources, because that is all I could find on this particular brand. In most cases, information is limited and in this case I chose to use these sources because otherwise the article would be a near-complete stub with very little information. I do invite you to find more sources though, as I have not been able to find any more than the current ones.

I do hope these arguments will be taken into consideration before deletion, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk)

In that case, it simple means your brand isn't yet notable enough to pass our notability-guidelines.Winged Blades^Godric 04:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MatteoNL97 (talk · contribs) has created articles on dozens of cigarette brands. I don't know of any specific guidelines for notability here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to GNG?Winged Blades^Godric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MatteoNL97 (talk · contribs) here.

I do want to add another comment, to follow up on what Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) said. I think his comment is quite reflective, considering the amount of Wikipedia's who got and often still get accepted without meeting the guidelines of notability here. I've recently started to update already existing cigarette Wiki's which, very often, barely had any sourcing, if any at all until I added it, and they all got accepted and stayed up for years. Meanwhile, I upload a small Wikipedia article with a few sources, and suddently it doesn't quality? That sounds a bit hypocritical in my book.

I strive to deliver knowledge of what I see as a subject that has had a big impact on a lot of societies for years, but is now seen as one of the biggest taboos (at least here in the West), hence why I've decided to create a lot of articles regarding cigarette brands, and why I've decided to update the existing ones. My goal is to show the good and the bad, and all my Wiki's have always been accepted, even if there were like, 2 sources up until when you started reviewing them.

Do take that into consideration before the final judgement, thank you.

MatteoNL97 (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists.You're not here to right great wrongs and absence of reliable significant sourcing will mean mandatory deletion of the articles.Winged Blades^Godric 09:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 12:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not notable per available sourcing and fails CORPDEPTH. The first article reference is a dead link and advertisement. The second is not a reliable source. The third (Liswood & Tache) is promotional, the fourth a dead link, and the fifth an advertising agency. A BEFORE only produced self-advertisement or promotional sources. The want or need to create articles must be in accordance to policies and guidelines and inclusion can be simply by silence that ceases when contested. Otr500 (talk) 08:41, 21 January 2018 (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.