Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smokers Rights


 * 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-- JForget 23:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Smokers Rights

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has mainly been developed by User:Naacats who has been blocked due to his repeated violations of NPOV (see: community sanction noticeboard). This article has few sources, and contains POV statements esp. using weasel words. The sections on the anti-smoking movement read like the speech of a soapboxer rather than a balanced, factual article. I feel that this topic should be covered on Wikipedia and is of at least mid-importance (maybe under a different title, like "Smokers' rights movement" or something), but as it has been created here I think it better to hit the "reset" button as this is a misleading and poorly-constructed article. TeamZissou 17:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepVoteyMcVoter 17:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC) — VoteyMcVoter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  User has been indefblocked for vandalism. MastCell Talk 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we've run out of soapboxes, we just can't spare any more for this article.--UsaSatsui 17:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - but I would accept formation of a new "Smokers' rights movement" or the equivalent. There is no doubt that smokers have some claims on rights like the rest of us (just that our rights to health take priority) and that there is no doubt that some have opposed smoking restrictions (not just the tobacco industry fronting organisations). I've made limited edits or fact tag insertion to the article previously, whilst waiting/hoping that Naacats would start fleshing out the article rather than having it as "Work under construction" that was way-off POV pushing and uncited - but for now the article remains fatally flawed in its approach and adherence to WP:N, WP:Cite, WP:V, WP:RS and of course WP:NPOV and the suggested alternative naming is more precise. David Ruben Talk 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Anyone involved in this discussion may want to have a read of this. I don't think any rules are being completely broken here, but off-wiki attempts to recruit meatpuppets for POV-pushing is certainly bending them. Expect a flood of SPA votes here, too. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  19:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That website has just been revamped and the link, whilst still that given on the homepage, is broken - I'm not sure if this means he has deliberately taken down the meatpuppet recruitment (credit to him if so), or just that the site's upgrade corrupted the links.David Ruben Talk 00:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Naacats had commented that the off-wiki canvassing link was supposed to be private and not visible to us (only to members of his organization), so chances are that he's just corrected the oversight which allowed us to view the canvassing. MastCell Talk 18:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. NN org. meshach 04:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Soapbox guidelines. Rainbow Of Light   Talk  11:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per SOAP. bogdan 12:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article is little more than a soapbox for the now banned User:Naacats.Yilloslime (t) 16:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsalvageable POV fork. The Smokers' Rights movement is potentially notable enough for its own article (though first, we should try to cover it in parent articles unless we accumulate too much well-sourced material) - but this article would require a complete tear-down and rewrite to be anything near encyclopedic. Therefore, I'd suggest deletion, with possible recreation in the future if sources accumulate and the topic gets too big for parent articles. MastCell Talk 18:48, 28 September 2007 (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.