Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aristoff

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. John254 00:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristoff

Unsourced, no claims of notability. I would have put a "notable" tag on it and ask for sources, but I've been accused of using "notable" tags in order to pump up my edit count, so I'll bring it here so that if it gets deleted, my edit count will be decrimented. Corvus cornix_talk 23:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the author of the article. This article is worthy of inclusion in the subject is a major international coroporation with sales in the millions. Perusing the wikipedia article List of cigar brands will turn up scores of articles on smaller manufacturers just like this one. This AFD will be a test case for the viability of all those articles and the poster above is to thank for the outcome, whatever it may be. JeanLatore (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is other stuff exists, which is something we try to avoid here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That sounds like a pretty weak rationale for an AfD nomination. If it is indeed impossible to establish notability of this company then fair enough, but don't nominate it just to avoid comments about 'padding your edit count'. Mazca (talk) 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have db-speedy nom'ed it if there were a speedy criterion for products. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh .... G11? (Not suggesting it's eligible.) --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what does "decrimented" (as used by the nominator) mean anyway? I agree with the last comment as well. JeanLatore (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Decriment" means "subtract by one". Corvus cornix_talk 23:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's Numberwang!... Sorry, can't help myself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean decrement. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete. There are a few news items, but they're mostly business-related and/or in the form of "The company died and was bought by someone". I don't think that gives notability, but it verifies that they exist. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, these appear reliable enough as things go (the first two are both definitely print, but not independent of each other). With Celarnor's sources there's probably just enough for an article. --Dhartung | Talk 00:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per my own and Dhartung's sources. I think it's sufficient for a stub. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per above. Luk suh 00:43, 6 April 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.