Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobacco packaging warning messages


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) – RyanCross  ( talk ) 07:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Tobacco packaging warning messages

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

Listcruft. I really hope I don't have to explain how trivial it is. Remurmur (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC) --Remurmur (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calification AFD really makes me lose faith in Wikipedia sometimes...
 * 1) Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * 2) It's basically the same messages over and over again translated into different languages. Having a list of every possible variation of the phrase "smoking is bad for you" is not encyclopedic, nor is it particularly informative.
 * 3) Original research, nearly impossible to verify everything, and I'm sure some countries don't require specific wording to be used.
 * 4) Any actual information on tobacco packaging warning messages itself should be incorporated into Tobacco advertising.
 * 5) Alcohol packaging warning messages, Toy packaging warning messages, Microsoft Windows warning messages...
 * Keep Unfortunately, I think you will have to explain how trivial this is. In my view, it's a fascinating insight into evolving worldwide tobacco policies. This is precisely the type of area in which Wikipedia shines; it's a topic of interest to a great number of people (smoking advocates, anti-smoking advocates, smokers, travelers, health advocacy professionals, graphic designers, etc, etc, etc) and the information contained in the article is not readily available elsewhere. There's a clear verifiability issue, but this strikes me as an ignore all rules scenario (it is, theoretically, possible to source each of the cigarette pack warnings, but I doubt anyone will ever get around to it). --Fullobeans (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is a long and storied history of tobacco package warning messages in Canada, starting from simple text warnings to the point where now, full-colour graphic warnings take up 50% of the package, as exemplified here. The nominated article has great potential for growth. Steamroller Assault (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I also see the potential for expansion, and it is a topic where users from all over the world can contribute. Let's not become over-scientific. (If you want a formal reason: it is notable, in world-wide use, and every newspaper, big or small, has covered the topic at some point in time) --Pgallert (talk) 08:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. The nominator makes a good point about the non-need for translation, but there's several snippets of information in the article that mention when those messages became law and such things. At the very least there's mergeable content in here. I think there's enough material there that could be salvaged through editing rather than deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree, I think the article needs a bit of work, but unlike the other examples you give, (Alcohol packaging warning messages, Toy packaging warning messages, ... ), the Tobacco warnings have evolved over the years and have become quite prominent in our society, (and a bit of talking point). It shows the various health departments attempts at dealing with the problem of smoking/diseases/cancer. FFMG (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I've actually found myself reading this. It's rather informative on how it's evolved, especially recently, into a full scale debate. Especially now as more countrys are going to be introducing graphical warnings also this could be important for the future.  Mattie TK  11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This list is NOT simply a translation of the same information into a bunch of different languages. It is an insight into the varying attitudes about smoking around the world.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - while there's a definite need for cleanup to be up to standards, subject is notable and has been covered by various reliable sources. There has also been scientific research (example) on the effect of tobacco packaging warning messages on smoking rates. So the subject definitely passes the notability and verifiability guidelines and is not trivial.--Boffob (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cigarette makers are usually required to vilify their products on their packaging by law &mdash; they probably wouldn't do so on their own.  The several required messages are notable and easily documentable, even if the European Union requires uniformity so that the messages are simply translations. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot/all of the translated warning messages should go, but the information on packaging standards in different countries is useful.  --Clay Collier (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject certainly not trivial, being literally a matter of life and death, and I really hope I don't have to explain how notable it is. The suggestion to cover this in tobacco advertising doesn't have any merit - these messages are the antithesis of advertising. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The content of this article is far from trivial and is most certainly encyclopaedic. It is not simply a page of translations, but a page referencing actual legislation regarding tobacco package warnings. Jamesnp (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2008 (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.