Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bugler (tobacco)

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 keep. John254 02:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bugler (tobacco)

Bugler (tobacco) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Appears to be a non-notable product, has no sourced assertions of notability, prod was removed with no imporvements made. neonwhite user page talk 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Definite Keep -The brand has over 1,500 hits at Google News as shown here. [1] – If that is not notable – verifiable and credible let’s pull the plug to the servers today. Shoessss |  Chat  17:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the article does not show evidence of notability, your link only provided trivial mentions, please familiarise yourself with the guidelines, especially WP:N and WP:PRODUCT before commenting. A subject is required to have "Significant coverage" in second party reliable sources. Hits on a search engine is not how we determine notability. The guidelines say that products should be redirect to the company that manufactures them but that article is even worse than this one. [2] --neonwhite user page talk 21:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

First, as you mention, WP:Notability is a guideline not policy. In that, it is only a guideline it is open to interpretation. Second, trivial is WP:POV as this discussion proves. What you view as trivial, I view as significant. If it were 1,500 hit at Google under a general search I would say you would be able to make a point. However, this product generated over 1,500 hits at Google News under very specific search criteria. That is significant and establishes notability. Shoessss |  Chat  10:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guidelines on notability as i said. Hits on a search engine do not under any circumstances make a subject notable. They never have and never will. If, however, a search produces several relaible second party sources which contains Significant coverage independant of the subject then this proves notability, but so far there none have been produced. Trivial ay be subjective but nevertheless it is a very importnet part of the guideline. --neonwhite user page talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep Googling's messy in cases like this, as there are a ton of hits which are just sales sites. However, there appears to be coverage here, evidence of the company's involvement in publicised lawsuits and the brand has been used in an art exhibit. And there are, dotted here and there, other suggestions the brand is sufficiently well known to be part of the cultural wallpaper. The point I'm trying to make here is that this may involve more work than, say, sourcing information about a famous film star, but I'm inclined to say that notability can be established here. --Sturm 11:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm switching to a straightforward "keep" here, after finding a source which says that Bugler is "the most popular prison tobacco". It's an extra twist to the coverage which surely points towards some kind of cultural/social notability. --Sturm 17:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it is not the subject of that article and doesnt get anywhere near significant coverage, articles have to provide something that could contribute to the article, if we removed all the unsourced info what would we be left with? --neonwhite user page talk 01:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge particular statements in the article, then judicious use of the {{Fact}} template would be in order. --Sturm 01:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is clearly unsourced, most is original research. --neonwhite user page talk 03:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Definite Keep neonwhite is NUTS - Bugler is probably the #1 selling brand of loose-leaf (RYO) tobacco in America. They were listed as #2 but in my days they were #1 and I kind of doubt they even went to #2 behind TOP. How could you say the #1 or #2 brand of rolling tobacco is not notable???? I've felt this before and I must again say - do you work for TOP or a competitor of Bugler? Otherwise how could you say that the #1 (or #2) brand is NOT NOTABLE??? --Put that in your pipe and smoke it (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal POV only, please read WP:N to learn how wikipedia establishes notability. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep notable prominent product.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Find some sources. --neonwhite user page talk 01:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with conwood. The most relevant guideline here is WP:PRODUCT and it states Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. In that case, the discussion of the company's products and services should be broken out from the company article in summary style. If the article can be sourced then it needs to be done soon. --neonwhite user page talk 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment - First --neonwhite user page talk, I take umbrage to your tone and criticism. I am familiar with WP: Notability guidelines, just look at my edit history, and yes, they are just guidelines, not policy. Secondly I will say that your are involved with Wikipedia:Wikilawyering here, which is distasteful at its best. Thirdly from your tone of response to me and the other editors that expressed an opinion on whether to keep or delete this article, I would take that you are making assumption of bad faith editing. It is extremely rare that I get involved, to this level, concerning an Afd, but you have managed to push all the right buttons. Now I’ll take a deep breath – step back and leave with a smile :-) - Shoessss |  Chat  01:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks and intimidation are not welcome here. I suggest you cease. Discuss the subject not the editors taking part. I have discussed this in nothing but a civil manner. The principle of notability is clear, subjects need to be verifiable in reliable second party sources. Your comments show a substantial lack of knowledge of WP:N guidelines which is why i suggested and continue to suggest you read it. Especially the Notability requires objective evidence section. Suggesting hits on a search engine is evidence of notability is incorrect because search engines find trivial mentions. Guidelines were created by editors and are considered the correct way to edit. You can't suggest they be ignored without a good reason. --neonwhite user page talk 03:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The brand is notable almost to the point of ubiquity. -Sean Curtin (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Then there should be reliable second party sources to be found. --neonwhite user page talk 14:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As per just about everyone above.BWH76 (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2008 (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.