Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Volcano Vaporizer

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volcano Vaporizer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Queried speedy delete. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 21#Volcano Vaporizer. Anthony Appleyard 11:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - None of the sources provided are suitable to establish notability (blogs, google-video etc.). Moreover, the article may not be the in-your-face advertising copy we sometimes get, but it still reads and is structured like a promotional leaflet. I think Appleyard's original G11 was spot on. CIreland 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. -- Gavin Collins 12:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ads, junk. Keb25 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Volcano Vaporize, and let the streams of molten spam flow.--Victor falk 13:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Hahaha, nice way to put it! Zouavman Le Zouave 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, spam. --Coredesat 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The topic does have a few mentions in newspapers, but only a few lines. It might be written up in pro-marijuana news sources and alternative newspapers. However, until those are located, there is not enough reliable source material independent of the Volcano Vaporizer to develop an attributable article on the Volcano Vaporizer. It might be worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article, but does not seem to merit its own article. Here is what I found:
  • (1) July 20, 2004 (about "a year-old application by Chemic Laboratories of Massachusetts to import 10 grams of marijuana from Dutch authorities for research into a device called the Volcano Vaporizer.");
  • (2) September 30, 2004 (writing, "Sitting in his office, he pulls out a stash and brings down the "Volcano" vaporizer, a small steel unit made by a German company. He turns the dial to seven and the machine starts buzzing. Becker puts in a pinch of marijuana, and the plastic bag inflates. Inside, it's almost perfectly clear. Becker pushes in the mouth valve and inhales.");
  • (3) Sheehan, Tim (May 8, 2005) The Fresno Bee Cities rush to address medical pot Visalia, Tulare grapple with how to deal with dispensaries. Section: Main News; Page A1. (writing "Jeremy Cooper demonstrates the "volcano," a vaporizer used to administer medicinal marijuana, Thursday at Medical Marijuana Awareness and Defense in Visalia. Medicinal marijuana may be taken several ways.").
  • (4) Billhartz, Cynthia. (February 21, 2006) St. Louis Post-Dispatch Vapor heads Section: Everyday; Page E1. (writing, "He put the coarse mixture into a small heating chamber that he inserted in the top of a Volcano Vaporizer, apparently named for its cone shape.")
  • (5) February 11, 2007 ("Then there was the Volcano Vaporizer, a stainless-steel device shaped like an Apollo space capsule. It works like this ..."). -- Jreferee T/C 16:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants deletions. -- Jreferee T/C 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-reliable sources. Zouavman Le Zouave 17:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Vaporizer where it should have been in the first place, SqueakBox 19:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a well good vaporizalizer. i am using one write now and it is the bom diggity bombom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.144.208 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commet Your poor spelling is not a good ad, SqueakBox 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Vaporizer. Perhaps a PARAGRAPH is warranted, but not this much. Also, the whole approach of this article is wrong. The problem here is that there shouldn't be an article about just one brand of vaporizer. The article presumes this is the only product in the world that does what the 'Volcano Vaporizer' does. The article fails the test of 'universal applicability' and reads like an underground ad for a product.Ryoung122 07:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice against recreation with proper sources and a neutral tone. This does read like an advert, and I think this article would benefit from a fundamental re-write. This is a product that is well known internationally, and it did receive plenty of independent critical review. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when I say I merge I mean (a) the name should definitely redirect) and (b) we can mention the Volcano at Vaporizer but not necessarily merge any of the current content which does read like an ad, SqueakBox 17:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Volcano Vaporize and support building a dyke , as per SqueakBox' motion, to stem the molten spam should it erupt again in the future --Victor falk 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A merge to Vaporizer is a good short term solution, but this device uses a technology that other vaporizers do not use. Most are just soldering irons in a jar. This is a distinct type of product, not just another vaporizer. I think if the proper sources were used this could pass notability requirements. This version is no good though, reads like an advert. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I kind of gett hat this is actually quite a notable device in itself and if we create a section in Vaporizert hen we could re-create the article, and I agree witht he above comment that there should be no prejudice against this article being re-created at a later date. opf copurse if someone in the know where to re-write the article right now I would happily change my vote, SqueakBox 23:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • It may be better as its own section in the vap article until there is enough content to justify a split. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, good to see that my request to restore the page again led to some discussion. I aggree that advertising no matter is unwanted. On the other hand it is the device ALL medical research is done with. I know at least 4 independent medical studies by universities (praising the device). Furthermore we are discussion here a form of application of that can be suitable for a whole lot more than just cannabis cause the effect of any substance via the lung is fast. In relation with (Listen up!) independent scientific studies I am sure the provided content is more than just PR - even if only talking about one specific device. (By the way, who is complaining about the iphone site, if taklking over commercial content?) I am pro restoring or rebuilding a new site for that simple product!

09:24, 1 October 2007 User:87.139.78.32

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.