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 for lack of reliable, independent sources, as indicated by those preferring to delete the article, and not shown to be incorrect by the others. Fram (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CigarettesPedia[edit]

CigarettesPedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No RS coverage, an Alex rank of 368,798 and ghits that don't assert notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Site appears to be a significant source for collectors. Some third party coverage comes up on a Google search. Dgf32 (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliable coverage? I see blogs, forums and mirrors. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, there!

I would like to give some explanations about the notability of CigarettesPedia. It contains images of cigarettes packs and articles regarding tobacco products and manufacturers. One can trace the history and evolution of any cigarette pack. The project does not promote smoking or smoking cessation. The resource itself is neutral.

About the ghits that don't assert notability, I suppose that this only shows that the supporters of the website did their job to increase traffic. I suppose that it deserves an article on WikiPedia. It is a quite young resource, but it has no analogies.

For example the article about Altria group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altria and its Alex rank of 416,743. How this thing is connected or influences the notability of the article about the Altria in Wikipedia? I understand that it is up to you to decide to leave or to delete the article but taking into consideration that the resource is new may be you’ll kindly give it a little of support? As I mentioned before, the whole resource is neutral. I really do not know, but may be more neutral penmanship in the article? If you have any suggestions on how to improve the article- I am all ears, your assistance will be appreciated. Thank you for your time.--Arolga (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Arolga I realise you worked very hard to create this article, but just because other stuff exists doesn't mean it (or this) should. There's nothing to establish notability because there have been no reliable sources covering the site, its significance, etc. Wikipedia has notability guidelines for websites and this site doesn't appear to meet them, so it's not so much a question of re-writing. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TRAVELLINGCARI, thank you for detailed explanation. Possible, this resource will be more notable for Wikipedia. Wish you luck in your hard work. --Arolga (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arolga (talk • contribs) 09:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the nomination, blogs and forums != reliable sources for encyclopedias. Wikipedia should be no exception. (jarbarf) (talk) 20:31, 2 March 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.