Template:Did you know nominations/Marketing of e-cigarettes


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Stability issues that have not been addressed in the month since the last comment, several article statements are currently marked for clarification, and both nominator and reviewer agree that the nomination has to be set aside for now.

Marketing of electronic cigarettes

 * ... that believing marketing that presents e-cigarettes as not harmful or addictive makes non-smokers, but not smokers, more likely to start vaping? Source: more likely, (quote: "perceptions of a lower degree of harmfulness (OR = 1.13, p = .047) and addictiveness (OR = 1.34, p < .001) of e-cigarettes predicted initiation among non-smokers, but not among current smokers."; in article, mention is ""Nonsmokers are more likely to start vaping if they think e-cigarettes are not very harmful or addictive; beliefs about harmfullness and addiction don't affect the probability that smokers will start vaping"") commonly presents
 * ALT1:... that e-cigarette marketing uses many of the same marketing techniques once used for tobacco? Source:, quote: "the e-cigarette companies have been rapidly expanding using aggressive marketing messages similar to those used to promote cigarettes in the 1950s and 1960s"; in article mention quotes these words
 * ALT2:... that some e-fluids marketed as nicotine-free contain nicotine? Source:
 * ALT3:... that although a child can die from drinking a few mL (less than one teaspoon) the e-cigarette fluid, some fluid has been marketed in packages that make it look and smell like candy, cookies, whipped cream and fruit juice, and even packaged with stickers and lollipops? Source:lollipops and stickers, lots more warning letters, many similar, press release and coverage of the warning letters, more examples, including Santa Claus endorsement.
 * ALT4:... that it is not know whether e-cigarettes are more or less addictive than cigarettes, but e-cigarette marketing has likely strengthened beliefs that e-cigarettes are known to be less addictive? Source:
 * Reviewed: Zoë Porphyrogenita
 * Comment: Much of the text is copied from Nicotine marketing, but it was new there, too. I suggest running this on May 31st, the WHO's World No Tobacco Day The image is not very good at this size. I don't think we could use the FDA's photos of the unicorn-rainbow with-lollipop-and-sticker packaged e-fluid as they presumably contain trademarks and copyright images. Pretty much all of these hooks are about false advertising, as "Some ads are honest" is not very hooky.

Created by HLHJ (talk) and I've had some helpful WikiGnomes and a helpful reviewer. (talk). Nominated by HLHJ (talk) at 01:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC).


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Comments on the hooks: Article is new and long enough. No copyright violations or plagiarism detected using Earwig's Copyvio Detector. I like ALT2 (it's verified and interesting), though I would change "labeled and sold" to "marketed." ALT0 and ALT1 are not verified by any of the citations in the article. ALT3 is too long (270 characters out of a maximum of 200), but is otherwise interesting and verified. ALT4 is not verified by any of the citations in the article. As you mentioned, none of the potential hooks are neutral, although I agree with you that I do not think it is possible to have a hook from this article that is both neutral and interesting (which suggests that this article should not be eligible for DYK). Comments on the image: The text in the image is too small to be read at the 120 x 133 px resolution that it would appear at on the Main Page and is more of an infographic than a picture anyhow. None of the potential hooks include "(pictured)", which they would need to if that image were to be used. I would recommend dropping the image. Comments on the article: This article is a content fork. Much of the content is off-topic (this is an article about marketing of e-cigarettes, not safety of e-cigarettes), cited using unreliable sources, or contains claims that are not verified in the sources. More specific issues include the following:

--Chumash11 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Article should be titled "marketing of electronic cigarettes," to be consistent with the main Electronic cigarette article and the Safety of electronic cigarettes article
 * 2) An image cannot be a source for claims about the harms of vaping; insert the references from the image into the article.
 * 3) "Addictiveness" section is not verified by source.
 * 4) "Use by non-smokers" section is entirely unrelated to the topic of the article.
 * 5) Everything but the first sentence in the "Stress" section is not relevant to the article.
 * 6) In the "Cost" section, the sentence "costs of e-cigarettes vary widely by jurisdiction" is almost entirely meaningless; please add more specifics.
 * 7) There are three citation errors that need to be fixed.
 * 8) Only one other article in mainspace (ignoring redirects) links to the article.


 * Thank you for the detailed review. I think I've fixed all the problems in the article that you list except the last two, cite errors and near-orphan status; I will work on those when I have time. I agree that the image is lousy and too small. Unfortunately, any good image will almost certainly be in-copyright and thus unusable. Dropping makes sense.
 * ALTs 2, 3, and 4 are about false and illegal marketing. ALTs 0 and 1 are not; I put them first on that account. I've added quotes for better sourcing, along with information about where they are found in the article. I've tried to make the hooks neutral, as in I think that a strong partisan for or against e-cigarettes could read them as neutrally informational (and false ads and packaging poisonous stuff as candy, while definitely likely to be seen as negative, seem likely to be seen as negative regardless of views on e-cigarettes). I've struck part of ALT4 as I think it needs a medrs; I would tend to strike the whole thing for lack of interest and neutrality both. HLHJ (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The article is no longer stable. I ask that this nomination be placed on hold until it is stable again, although I still welcome comments. HLHJ (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg I think that is a wise decision. Best to table this until the issues with the article can be fixed. Thank you for being so reasonable. Chumash11 (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)