Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevalence of tobacco usage


 * 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) &mdash; neuro  (talk)  18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Prevalence of tobacco usage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is essentially duplication of incomplete articles this was designed to supplement. The lead and "Prevalence" section are all duplications of the "Prevalence" section in Health effects of tobacco; and the ranks section is essentially an incomplete duplication of the information already found in the two world maps provided. It may be fundamentally possible to create this article as a spin off at a future date, however at its current state it acts mainly as a distractor in the context of the articles it was written to supplement. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

''I've added the AFD template to the page, the nominator forgot (I wasn't even aware it was here until the user tipped me off). - Epson291 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)''
 * Strong Keep I believe the subject of the article is extremely useful and notable. All large topics have subarticles, and the six paragraph summary in Health effects of tobacco is not sufficient (nor should it be expanded and detract from the main topic of that article). Of course the AFD needs to be expanded, but the text copied and pasted is GPL licensed and serves as a springboard for an eventually complete article. Estemi (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's synthesis, too. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. While the article reads somewhat non neutrally to me, and seems to assume the validity of public-healthist viewpoints, the article seems like a worthy topic, independent of the article on health effects of tobacco, and seems well referenced. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the topic could use more content, I always favor letting articles "gestate" that seem to have a bright future rather than destroying anything that may have some overlap with another article.  Some good editting will solve these issues without deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.85.236 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral, the points I enumerated are no longer valid in that it has been substantially expanded. Synthesis is certainly an issue, and the remedy would probably to be the delete the sentences beginning with "for example" among other things. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This is a valid enycolpedic topic, well referenced, and the article already contains substaintial information different from Health effects of tobacco. Nominator has said above that his/her original points for deletion are no longer valid. (Full discolure, I am a recent editor). Epson291 (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per Epson291. Perfectly valid, verifiable article, with loads of good sources, and useful for college and high school students doing reseach on this important topic.  Please tag any issues and fix it or move on. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (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.