Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 03:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Positions of medical organizations on electronic cigarettes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please note that Arbcom general sanctions apply in this topic area. Following the recent Arbcom case I'd now like to begin cleaning up our coverage of electronic cigarettes. This page is one of a number of forks of Electronic cigarette created over the past year. I know this article contains a lot of text, has been formatted to resemble an encyclopaedia article and it's got a lot of citations to reliable sources, but why do we have it? We have Electronic cigarette. We also have Safety of electronic cigarettes and Regulation of electronic cigarettes. What's the purpose of another fork? I considered proposing mergers, but I don't think that's the right approach, because everything important from this article is already in the other articles I've mentioned. It's a needless fork and I hope you will agree with me that it should be deleted. — S Marshall T/C 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It is not a fork but a subpage of the main article. Regulations are law. This is positions of medical organizations. They are different. It is not like we do not have enough space. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep A complex and developing subject which it is worth covering as fully as we can, since the view on e-cigs depends on balancing unknowns against uncertains. The section in the main article is much shorter, rightly. Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The e-cig main page is certainly large enough to warrant a WP:SPLIT of material to subpages. Yobol (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The positions of medical organizations on this topic are certainly worth including in an encyclopedia.  It is valuable information that is reliably sourced.  Any argument that this topic should not be a standalone article should accompany a suggestion to merge or redirect rather than to delete.  Deli nk (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge anything not already there into Safety of electronic cigarettes. The encyclopedic issue is the healh impact, the reason this page exists is because organisations dispute that. I think most readers of one page will want to see the information on the other and most information is duplicated across the two pages. 2.218.103.23 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello, single-edit ISP! Safety of electronic cigarettes is already 102K long, and organized by topic. This is 30K long, and organized differently, as well as covering other issues beyond safety. Do you really think it is a good idea to merge them? Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Safety is 53kB of readable prose and already contains some of the claims on this page. It could do with a major trimming as well. AlbinoFerret  19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The purpose of another subpage is that it is too much information for the main article. See WP:SPINOFF. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's certainly too much information for the main article. It's also too much information for an encyclopaedia.  In fact, it's basically a laundry list of everything a medical organisation has said about e-cigarettes in the past few years.  It's written in something resembling WP:PROSELINE and prior to the Arbcom sanctions it was used as a holder for all the semi-relevant junk that disruptive people kept adding to Electronic cigarette to make it conform to their notion of "balance".  Now that we have Arbcom sanctions we no longer need the container.  I do hope that if it's kept, those !voting "keep" in this discussion will be the ones cleaning it up into a proper summary-style article with a beginning, middle and end that's phrased in readable English.— S Marshall  T/C 19:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment There is a place for positions of medical organisations at WP, but it should be one place, whether it be in this article or another. It would be a good idea to use "guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies" only, and not merely quote any group who expresses an opinion. P Walford (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much what the article does, surely? Plus some statements by key public health and healthcare organizations and charities, who have squads of experts on hand. The key interest of the article, although the current form does not point this out to the reader, is the somewhat startling difference between positions given in the two longest national sections, for the US and UK.  Johnbod (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not entirely. The ADA quote is not from their official guidelines. CDPH are neither national nor international. Arguments can be made that some organisations (e.g. NACCHO) are political, not medical. I agree (if it's what you said): the difference between the positions of UK and US organisations should be mentioned to the reader. P Walford (talk) 15:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a fork of content which would usually be in a main article. Normally 1-2 sentences are enough but people like this content and it would be hard to provide a non-controversial summary in the main article without this list backing it up. The content is well sourced and I hope this leads to consensus on a more accessible summary being used elsewhere.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2015 (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.