Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cigarette substitute

Cigarette substitute

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)

---

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)

• 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)
  • 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)
      • 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)
          • 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)
• Keep It is our explicit policy to keep such articles with good potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• 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)

  • 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)
• 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)

• 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)

  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)