Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoking culture


 * 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 based on below discussion, but I am making an editorial decision to redirect to Smoking, since this article has been around for a while and seems like a plausible search term. Redirect should not be undone with seriously addressing the below concerns (namely, lack of references). W.marsh 14:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Smoking culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I do not believe the page should be deleted, however it has been under attack by a single Wikipedia editor who repeatedly redirects the page to his own, without incorporating any of two years of edits by multiple editors, and when called on it, removes parts of the article to make it appear to have a different purpose than it truly does. We're trying to get it sourced, but his edits now become antagonistic. Bad faith use of WP:OWN, and I would like the value of this article decided by the Wikipedia community at large, rather than a single editor with an axe to grind. Chris 08:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment The article has been tagged as lacking sources and having generally poor article structure (and for a time essay-like content) since August of last year, and the only substantial contrubtions have been made by Chris himself. There was a conflict between me and Chris where I tried to make him either improve this article or to help work on the culture section of the main article smoking, by redirecting smoking culture there. So far, nothing has been achieved except creating bluster on talk:smoking culture. The latest edit, which provoked this AfD, was to insist on upholding the questionable attempt to limit the article to tobacco smoking, a process initiated by the since banned pro-smoking, pro-tobacco POV-pusher Naacats.

The biggest problem in this conflict is that Chris views this as an issue of "his" article vs. "my" article instead of focusing on content or verifiability. Personal prestige, not content quality and respect for readers, has been the re-occuring theme throughout this squabble.

Peter Isotalo 08:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * reply I tried to make him-listen to yourself! You've done nothing to improve the article, nor included unique points into the "main article"-merging might be appropriate, redirect without inclusion of anything is not. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Removing content that has been unsourced for over a year is very much within the reasonable limits of interpretation of Verifiability, wouldn't you agree? The community consensus is stipulated quite clearly in the sentence "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." The only editor who has really added and restored is you. You've been notified about the problem and given suggestion on how to fix it, yet you have done nothing of the sort. Why is it then my, or anyone else's, responsibility to amend the problem?
 * Peter Isotalo 14:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep The article emphasizes a smoking as a culture (or subculture) in society. Cultural examples are provided at smoking, but the author of smoking culture is not referring to mere examples in culture. The author is emphasizing a marked subculture of its own. Author emphasizes specialized and distinct artifacts designed for and supporting a culture not likely to be used by a mainstream culture. Mindlurker 09:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Presenting smoking as a subculture of its own is very much original research.
 * Peter Isotalo 08:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've provided a link to an article indicating that the concept of a "smoking culture" is not OR in the discussion page, it has a healthy and deep list of reference material, and the references appear to all come from notable sources. Mindlurker 00:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Smoking is not really a subculture in itself, but an aspect of culture as a whole. It is very important to certain subcultures (bikers, rockers, rastas, beatniks, hippies, etc.) but cliques of human society that are based entirely around smoking itself are kinda rare.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * reply nobody is presenting it as a subculture, but it has developed a culture around it. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Though not a bad idea for a Wikipedia topic, this one has never attempted to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. It's unsourced, heavy on original research, and mostly an essay.  There have been good books about the history of cigarette smoking, such as Robert Sobel's They Satisfy.  This one avoided deletion on the grounds that it could be sourced, but nobody (including myself) has the time to fix this fixer-upper. Mandsford 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP has polices that this does not meet. And, no refs even though it has been tagged for a year.  - Rjd0060 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP- This article is well written, and while a little lacking in sources is mostly unbiased (especially compared to other articles on the subject such as smoking. 75.84.99.131 17:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Judging by the presence of this diff among the anonymous users short history of contributions, I'd say that this is a sockpuppet of User:Naacats.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a start-class fork of B-class rated "Smoking", with no information that is not redundant--victor falk 17:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment this is not a fork, which implies it was broken off another article-it was written completely independently. Chris 14:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I meant it is entirely redundant.--victor falk 14:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be redundant if the "parent article" actually contained material from this article, which it does not. If it were properly merged, rather than multiply redirected without adding anything, then the issue would be solved. Chris 15:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to read smoking a little closer, because a lot, if not most, of what smoking culture describes is already mentioned there.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete What can we say? It is redundant; its topic is already covered in Smoking. Best course of action is merging it to [].--Orthologist 17:18, 20 October 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.