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.
Rewrite It's certainly a notable company, and I think it deserves an article. It should, however, be rewritten. It even appears there may be original research in there. If nobody else wants to, I would be willing to try rewriting it to give it another chance. --BennyD23:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - being in bad shape is not valid grounds for deletion. Being in bad shape and unable to be fixed is valid grounds, but this one seems fairly easy, and considering the existence of similar article in better shape (Category:Tobacco companies of the United States) there is obviously editor interest in the topic. The copyvio of the CDC has to go, though. LyrlTalkC22:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the text was still a copyvio from another source. I have rewritten much of the article and have also added two references. I will also attempt to incorporate the CDC report as a reference. -- Black Falcon20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the CDC reference. The prevalence of information proves the subject's notability and we should keep this short, but sourced stub. The search "kodiak AND tobacco -wikipedia" yields 213 results in Google Scholar, 255 results in Google Books, 1280 results in Google News, and 115,000 results in a regular Google search. -- Black Falcon21:03, 27 March 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.