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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EAbsinthe.com[edit]

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

Originally this was an internet shop. It is now not a shop but just an information site with links to a much smaller shop.— Preceding unsigned comment added by BryonyM (talk • contribs) 18 December 2009

Step 2 of the AfD nomination process (listing of article heading and links) was not completed correctly. It has been manually corrected. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It sounds like the nomination rationale is the business' current status as defunct. I have not yet tried to determine notability, but a business that was once notable does not cease to be notable if it becomes defunct. If this business was never notable, that's another, more valid argument for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (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.