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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marlboro Blend No. 27[edit]

Marlboro Blend No. 27 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

• Delete How ridiculous of wiki, give us the facts about cigarettes. If not, prepare to face your doom. Xl4dyh4x4l0tX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.22.147.113 (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion as per WP:N Piddle 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - also reads like advertising (Also, cigarette are extremely healthy for you and will not effect your health one bit - yeah right). Walton monarchist89 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from the obvious untruth re health, this is a wholly obvious and blatant advertisement which I would have slapped an immediate ((speedy)) tag on.--Anthony.bradbury 18:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The crap about health was vandalism - it's been since reverted. I'm not sure where to go here, so for now I abstain. --Dennisthe2 20:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • clear delete well the truly absurd nonsense is gone but the article will still always fail to meet notability criteria. it's a brand of cigarettes, not even a particularly popular one, which is not groundbreaking or much different from dozens of other currently available varieties of cigarettes. Piddle 02:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion. Piddle raises a point, and it's clear that a single type of cigarette is probably not notable inherently. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per discussion LazyDaisy 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Although this reads in part like advertising, I think wiht some improvement it can be made into an article. I for one was researching Marlboro brands and this article was a useful source of info that they are a type of marlboro cigs - we dont have these in UK - only Blend 28.

Personally, I think this article will be deleted as I did create an article on Cafe Creme cigarillos - it was wiped after a week with no discussion which I personally thought was wrong and the Wikipedian who did it should be ashamed of themselves.

Aside from that - people have made an effort with this article, and have put a picture of the brand too. It deserves to have work on it before deletion.

Many articles on this site would not appear in a normal encyclopedia. But this is no ordinary encyclopedia. I think if you delete this sort of article (aside from the arguements on health of this product - lets not forget artciles on BUrger King are bad for your health too) then other articles such as companies, majority of celebrities should be deleted too PrincessBrat 20:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT insofar as your argument that others should be deleted if this one goes. With all due respect, your suggestion at deleting celebrities because we're debating deletion of a brand of cigarettes is a non-sequitur. --Dennisthe2 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison was made simply because there are a lot of 'celebrities/sportspeople' on this encyclopedia who are not that famous outside their profession - by all means have an article on someone like Charlie Chaplin they are very well known but other celebrities who are still alive and not that famous, such as some soccer players who are on here is pointless - so on that basis if your going to keep the non celebrities/sportspeople why not keep other brands of cigarettes which are not that popular. Let us not beat about the bush, you wouldnt see this or some soccer player article in Encyclopedia Britannica would you?

I hope that this article is not being considered for deletion due to its content matter -i.e tobacco and someone who hates smokers is proposing its deletion. If it is, can I say that it is unlikely a non smoker would find this article and start smoking based on the content. I for one wouldnt! --PrincessBrat 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as notability goes, we do have our standards, and every article on here is required to adhere to that. If it doesn't... well, that's why we have AfD. =^_^= As far as the purpose behind the deletion of this article, just remember to assume good faith, and note that a true bad-faith deletion has a habit of getting closed in a big hurry. --Dennisthe2 23:06, 2 February 2007 (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.