Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigarette brands


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Cigarette brands
Does not serve any purpose that Category:Cigarette brands does not. Ezeu 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Good nom.  Starry Eyes  10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong (恭喜发财) 12:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. May be useful to have the list at some point, although it should be renamed List of cigarette brands. Youngamerican 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge the red links onto the category page, then delete. I think a list really needs to present multi-variate data to distinguish itself from a category. &mdash; RJH 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The category is adequate; the page is superfluous.  (aeropagitica)   17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Regulatory fascism is becoming more popular than ever, and someone must stand against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.205.39 (talk • contribs)
 * Weak keep, despite my urge to engage in some regulatory fascism. Might be useful somehow, and offers more latitude for expansion than a category does.  Adrian Lamo ·  (talk)  · (mail) · 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd stand against regulatory fascism, but I doubt it'd hold me up. Ikkyu2 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all listcruft :: Supergolden 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to a category and a list that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, contains red links, thus not redundant to a category. Kappa 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, add to each line some one-liner text for context -- Marvin147 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.