Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigarette substitute
- 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. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cigarette substitute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unnecessary article with a non-notable topic. Basically only describes one particular cigarette substitute, the electronic cigarette, for which there is already a more extensive article. Lists patents for some other devices, however those listed actually don't fall under the definition of a "cigarette substitute" given by the article. Sources given are just links to patent descriptions. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as spam. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article that only contains a few facts is a stub. We don't delete stubs that have potential for expansion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. And given that this article doesn't mention the many other cigarette substitutes that have been proposed over the years, including lettuce-leaf cigarettes (not mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia, and clearly a subject to be dealt with here) for example, this is a stub with potential for expansion. I encourage Equazcion and Bearian'sBooties to remember that writing is also an option for articles, and is our reason for being here in the first place. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the content of the present article is mostly unusable, it's generally the practice to delete until someone wants to re-create it with new content. As it stands presently I don't see any potential for "improvement" per se. You're correct that there's probably a lot that could fit under this title, but as it stands the title is about all that's actually useful here. Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content, I think it's better to delete it for now, since it doesn't presently meet Wikipedia's standards, with no prejudice towards future re-creation (as always). Equazcion •✗/C • 07:16, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- Wrong. When the content of the article, as here, is a stub containing a few facts about the subject, both Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy state, and have always stated, that the article is not deleted, but is expanded. The rest of us are not your tame editing service. You want this article improved? {{sofixit}}! We don't delete articles for not being cleaned up, and we don't delete stubs for not having been expanded yet. Your attitude towards article development is completely wrong. You are supposed to be writing and expanding articles where you see scope for improvement, not trying to push the burden of that onto others by mis-using deletion nominations. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So much for good faith. I seem to have stepped into a war that I wasn't privy to. Lay down your arms for a minute. To answer your accusations, I'm not misusing a deletion nomination and I'm not trying to push any burdens on anyone. I nominated the article for deletion because I think it should be deleted, and I don't expect anyone to fix it, that is of course unless they feel compelled on their own to do so. I don't remember telling anyone to edit the article for me. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what you did, above. I want the article improved? No, I'm suggesting it be deleted. You want the article improved. We're here to write articles, not delete them, right? Your words. So go for it, and stop telling everyone else to. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.
If you're referring to my mention of replacing the article's content, that was merely my presenting what I think is the only alternative to deletion. In other words, I feel the present article should be deleted, but that the topic still has merit, so replacing the content entirely would accomplish the same goal -- but if not that then I think it needs to be deleted.
I'm not against expanding stubs, but this doesn't seem to just be a stub. It seems to be useless content, which is usually deleted, no matter the length of the article. Just in case there's any confusion, I again want to stress the fact that I'm not commanding you or anyone to do any editing. I'm just presenting the general options for the article, as I see them. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:42, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not the one complaining about the article. You are. {{sofixit}}! Pull out your editing button and actually write content. And you most definitely said "Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content […]". Stop treating other editors as your personal editing service, and stop abusing AFD as a hammer. Verifiable facts on a subject are not "useless content", and this article, whose first sentence explicitly defines the topic, most definitely is a stub. You need to bring your approach to this project in line with its long-standing Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, because you are completely out of tune with this project's ethos and policy. Not only do we improve stubs rather than delete them, we aim to preserve information, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've sure got this confrontation thing down. You should look into blood pressure medication, sir. If anyone with a more calm demeanor would like to express their thoughts to me on this subject please feel free. I'd like to have an actual discussion about this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- Resorting to baseless innuendo about the state of one's interlocutor is the classic last resort of people who want to avoid addressing an argument that they know that they cannot refute. We even have an article on ad hominem arguments. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You've sure got this confrontation thing down. You should look into blood pressure medication, sir. If anyone with a more calm demeanor would like to express their thoughts to me on this subject please feel free. I'd like to have an actual discussion about this. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:26, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not the one complaining about the article. You are. {{sofixit}}! Pull out your editing button and actually write content. And you most definitely said "Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content […]". Stop treating other editors as your personal editing service, and stop abusing AFD as a hammer. Verifiable facts on a subject are not "useless content", and this article, whose first sentence explicitly defines the topic, most definitely is a stub. You need to bring your approach to this project in line with its long-standing Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy, because you are completely out of tune with this project's ethos and policy. Not only do we improve stubs rather than delete them, we aim to preserve information, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So much for good faith. I seem to have stepped into a war that I wasn't privy to. Lay down your arms for a minute. To answer your accusations, I'm not misusing a deletion nomination and I'm not trying to push any burdens on anyone. I nominated the article for deletion because I think it should be deleted, and I don't expect anyone to fix it, that is of course unless they feel compelled on their own to do so. I don't remember telling anyone to edit the article for me. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what you did, above. I want the article improved? No, I'm suggesting it be deleted. You want the article improved. We're here to write articles, not delete them, right? Your words. So go for it, and stop telling everyone else to. Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.
- Wrong. When the content of the article, as here, is a stub containing a few facts about the subject, both Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy state, and have always stated, that the article is not deleted, but is expanded. The rest of us are not your tame editing service. You want this article improved? {{sofixit}}! We don't delete articles for not being cleaned up, and we don't delete stubs for not having been expanded yet. Your attitude towards article development is completely wrong. You are supposed to be writing and expanding articles where you see scope for improvement, not trying to push the burden of that onto others by mis-using deletion nominations. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When the content of the present article is mostly unusable, it's generally the practice to delete until someone wants to re-create it with new content. As it stands presently I don't see any potential for "improvement" per se. You're correct that there's probably a lot that could fit under this title, but as it stands the title is about all that's actually useful here. Unless you'd like to edit the article right now and replace its content, I think it's better to delete it for now, since it doesn't presently meet Wikipedia's standards, with no prejudice towards future re-creation (as always). Equazcion •✗/C • 07:16, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- Keep It is our explicit policy to keep such articles with good potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The idea that we must keep all such articles is certainly not explicit in that policy -- it just says article don't have to be perfect, it doesn't demand keeping imperfect ones around. It gets tiring seeing you make that argument over and over.
Delete I'm sick of the wikilawyering to try to keep bad articles. It's better to remove ones that can't be salvaged then keep them around. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article can be salvaged. You could even salvage it yourself if you were willing to write content on this subject rather than complain about the poor state of the article and about other editors who point out what this project's article development policies have been from the start of the project. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's not a dicdef and I don't see how it's unsalvagable. (It could be expanded with information about how the law of different countries treat cigarette subs (pay smoking tax, does smoking ban apply, etc?) Link to different notable devices that are cigarette substitutes, discuss whether it helps get rid of the addiction, scientific studies. Plenty of potential.- Mgm|(talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. When I first saw the title "Cigarette substitute" I didn't envision a specific product. I thought it would be a list of substitutes or alternatives for smoking cigarettes. I would turn this article into a list of cigarette/tobacco/nicotine substitutes, and rename it appropriately if desired. This patent for a cigarette substitute may be included in that article. Possible names: List of cigarette substitutes, List of alternatives to cigarettes, List of nicotine delivery mechanisms or something to that effect, and include this article, the electronic cigarette, nicotine patches etc. LinguistAtLarge 22:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Nicotine inhaler. It is not clear from the article text what counts as a "cigarette substitute". Does it have to look like a cigarette? The Electronic cigarette article states that the electronic cigarette "usually takes the form of some manner of elongated tube" and that "many are designed to resemble the outward appearance of real smoking products, like cigarettes, cigars, and pipes", more-or-less implying that some are not. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't have a source for it, but many electronic cigarettes take other shapes -- the most prominent shape after the imitation of smoking products is the shape of ballpoint pens. The definition in this article is a mistake. It was taken from the patent description in the reference, which describes one specific product that happens to be shaped like a cigarette. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- And you could have corrected that mistake with less effort than it has taken you to write the above paragraph. Please bring yourself into line with this project's ethos and policy. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to look up in sources what constitutes a cigarette substitute, and expand the article with what you find. That's what we are actually supposed to be doing here. Deletion policy is, and has always been, that our task here with stubs is to expand them, by writing. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I don't have a source for it, but many electronic cigarettes take other shapes -- the most prominent shape after the imitation of smoking products is the shape of ballpoint pens. The definition in this article is a mistake. It was taken from the patent description in the reference, which describes one specific product that happens to be shaped like a cigarette. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:44, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- See also Nicotine inhaler. It is not clear from the article text what counts as a "cigarette substitute". Does it have to look like a cigarette? The Electronic cigarette article states that the electronic cigarette "usually takes the form of some manner of elongated tube" and that "many are designed to resemble the outward appearance of real smoking products, like cigarettes, cigars, and pipes", more-or-less implying that some are not. 88.235.147.36 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not worth keeping--too narrow. Better to start over. DGG (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your statement that it is too narrow is directly contradicted by what LinguistAtLarge writes above. Please remember what a stub is. It isn't necessarily comprehensive. So basing an agument on the asumption that its current treatment of the subject is comprehensive is highly flawed. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sometimes deletion and starting over is better. Other times, converting it into a category, if it doesn't already exist is better. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 09:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, writing to expand a stub with scope for expansion (which has even been laid out above) is always better. It simply requires editors to learn the ethos of the project and put our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy into practice. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You keep mentioning that ethos thing, but what you're really saying is that everyone else should get in line with your views. You should know by now that people have different ways of interpreting those "ethos" you keep referring to. Yours isn't the only view. Please get in line with that, as the spirit of open discussion and debate is what's paramount on Wikipedia -- not this "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:28, 4 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- On the contrary, writing to expand a stub with scope for expansion (which has even been laid out above) is always better. It simply requires editors to learn the ethos of the project and put our Wikipedia:Editing policy and Wikipedia:Deletion policy into practice. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to answer the whole "expand the stub" thing: This article isn't a little bit of good material that can be expanded upon -- Everything about this article is wrong. The most glaring example is that the title is generic but the first line describes a specific product. This is a blunder that needs to be completely replaced. You could still say that no editor should request deletion in the case of bad content, and should instead write new new content, but that's not something we currently demand of editors. We allow the deletion and the new content to come in separate steps and from separate editors. You could make the argument that we should demand otherwise, but I think that's an argument to be made elsewhere, as it goes against the current general practice. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:38, 3 Jan 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: article on a specific patent, lacking any third party or non-trivial sourcing. An article on 'Cigarette substitutes', generally, might be a good idea -- but this article ain't it, and never will be (without a complete recreation from scratch). HrafnTalkStalk 12:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Smoking cessation. Normally one should merge the content, and Smoking cessation—not Wikipedia's greatest article—could use a section on Smoking cessation aids, but there is really nothing worth retaining here. 88.233.36.11 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 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.