Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornell & Diehl


 * 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. ✗ plicit  08:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Cornell & Diehl

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unremarkable local tobacco company, appears to fail WP:CORP/WP:GNG. The closest thing to significant coverage that I can find is this article (archive), but it's local, short, and reads very much like routine coverage. Apart from some reviews and mentions in tobacco-specific media, there doesn't seem to be anything else. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC) - Not sure what you mean by “local” - their blends are found in the USA, UK, and even China. - Size is relative here. Pipe tobacco is a very niche product, with a handful of companies left. Dunhill got out of the business recently and Peterson is now carrying their classic blends. Sutiliff and MacBaren are still around. McClelland went out of business 3 years ago or so. - In https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/15/cornell-diehl, you can see over 300 blends they produce, compared to Peterson’s 80 (https://www.tobaccoreviews.com/brand/45/peterson), for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand (talk • contribs) 15:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC) (copied/pasted from the article's talk page by Lennart97 (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC))  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think that local source is routine coverage, but it alone can't do anything for the article, and the fact that it's the only coverage outside of new product announcements in trade publications since 2013 doesn't bode well for the notability. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The size of the company or the number of blends they produce don't really matter one way or another as long as there is a lack of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems your mind is made and there’s nothing new to add then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfernand (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not up to me whether the article is kept or deleted, but up to the community. Lennart97 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable company lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2021 (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.