Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vape shop


 * 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 snow close. The nominator has withdrawn and there is clearly no consensus to delete this article.— S Marshall T/C 01:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)'''

Vape shop
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, nothing that is notable has ever happened at a vape shop, and simply existing is not notable WP:EXISTENCE. Its references just show they exist. Simple listing per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It is all about a type of store that is very WP:RECENT with nothing notable about it. It is the product mainly of a topic banned editor. AlbinoFerret 16:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding, the sources are mostly describing openings of vape shops. Different shops exist all over, open all over, all the time, its run of the mill.WP:ROTM AlbinoFerret  16:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete. One of many types of retail store not notable on it's own.--TMCk (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Other examples please? Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How about every retail store that doesn't have an article?--TMCk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many types of store rightly have articles, though usually they are not much good. Eg Confectionery store and shoe shop. Our coverage of most types of low-level commerce is very poor, but this is no reason for deletion. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, for the most I would say some rightly have an article while most rightly don't. How about lifting the article(s) out of it's misery by editing it to uncover this assumed notability? Maybe it does exist (somewhere) but not in the presented form (and that's what I go by in this discussion).--TMCk (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete I said it when it was created, there's no need for an article on a vape shop because it's just a shop that sells vape stuff, so the only unique information is or should be in the e-cig article. Was there a prevuiys AFD for this? SPACKlick (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I could find. You could be remembering one of the other articles like this that QuackGuru made. AlbinoFerret  18:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep Changing to keep, some of the articles posed here as well as a few other sources show this likely does meet the criteria for a stub on shop genre. SPACKlick (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC) Keep though the current article is of course just Vape shops in the United States. They are an interesting subject, not least in terms of market share etc. Easily enough press and academic coverage, which supporters seem to be resolutely ignoring. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes GNG. For example, see Vape-Shop Owners Chart New Ground.  See also tobacconist, head shop, confectionery store, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That really isnt notability, nothing happened other than the shops opening. The rest is simply WP:OSE. AlbinoFerret  18:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it really is notability. Here are two more sources: London's first e-cigarette coffee shop opens its doors to capital's 'vapers'; Ecigarette shops lead high streets’ transformation.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep - definitely passes muster as a genre of store. Wikipedia has a long tradition of [even if just stubs, but] filling out complete catalogs of things like "furniture", "meals", and "clothing". I see no reason why a valid and obviously true and non-spam non-COI type of retail establishment should be excluded. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also think the article is overlinked with references, many of which are prima facie self-evident. I assume this was in response to a deletion nom, but when and if the article passes they could be trimmed down. Something like this does not need a litany of news articles to prove it is real. JesseRafe (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing has really been added since OCT 21st. There was a minor ref maintenance Nov 2, by a topic banned editor, but it didnt really add anything. The problem is that thats all this article is, proving a vape shop exists. That isnt notable in itself. AlbinoFerret  18:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There may potentially be scope for an article on economics of electronic cigarettes. An article on vape shop specifically is not appropriate.— S Marshall  T/C 17:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep It's a new thing in the world. Cloudjpk (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article easily passes WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We don't have articles on "Shoe Stores" even though those exist in much, much greater number than vape shops. We do, however, have articles on Footlocker and Dick's Sporting Goods so when one vape retailer becomes notable enough for an article it should be covered similarly in that way.LesVegas (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely the wrong way round! As pointed out above, we do indeed have shoe shop, and should lose all the American chains before we lose that. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh my bad, Johnbod, I didn't realize we had a shoe shop, but not a shoe store, article. But, again, my other point remains: how many shoe stores do we have versus vape stores? Thousands and thousands of shoe stores versus a relative handful of vape shops. It's also not specific enough. I wouldn't mind seeing an article of vape bars, even though there's even less of those, because it's far more specific. Vape shop is both far too scanty and far too general and nonspecific for its own article, the worst of both worlds. LesVegas (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. As of 2013, the United States contains 3,500 specialty vape shops, according to an industry publication.– Gilliam (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because they exist, does not make them notable WP:ORGSIG. AlbinoFerret  03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not the applicable policy for a type of retailer (any more than WP:RECENT is relevant here. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a thing nowadays, and there is sufficent data to pass WP:GNG on the subject itself. The nominator should remember that " nothing that is notable has ever happened at a vape shop" is a truly terrible argument to use for deletion - whether anything notable happened at one or not is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the topic itself is notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 12:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete We do not generally have articles for types of shops. I checked Donut shop, Auto parts shop, Fabric shop, Dress shop ... we have articles about the items (donuts, textiles, automobiles, dresses) but not articles about the stores that sell them. There is an article for shoe shop but it's a stub. Vape shops are very new, and over the next few years may either be out of business or vapeware may be sold in non-speciality stores. I think it's worth waiting to see. LaMona (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting first choices! We do have draper and boutique, and no doubt others. But even if we didn't, what policy, if any, are you basing your "delete" on? Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because articles on shops exist, doesnt make them notable WP:INN. AlbinoFerret  16:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Explain an argument to delete this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacconist Making none, hard to justify the same here.  Unless you want to define Electronic Cigarettes as Tobacco and then seek to move the content of Vape Shop under Tobaccoist.   Are you? Mystery Wolff (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an example of WP:OSE and is a failed argument in deletion discussions. AlbinoFerret  20:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep This is a thing. It is also a term that is called out in legislation within laws. It is used in the news. It is something that people see. It is something that people who use the internet may want to inquire upon. A quick not controversial encyclopedic entry is a benefit, without POV. I see above that requester is concerned that it has not been updated since Oct 21. Many entries and changes does not determine the value of an Article. Mystery Wolff (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

With a count of 8 to 4 editors to keep, I would suggest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Speedy_keep, I see no way there is going to be consensus to delete this page, given the well reasoned KEEPS from 8 editors. If a drawn out process goes on, I don't see the outcome of KEEP is going to change because of the processes and guides. Mystery Wolff (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep
 * You are not counting my delete and S Marshall's comment that looks like a delete. 6 to 8 isnt speedy criteria. AlbinoFerret  20:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly advocating deletion. I'm advocating changing the article title to economics of electronic cigarettes (which is what the better sources in this article are really about anyway).  We'd move content about the business of electronic cigarette sales here.  So it would expand in scope to include electronic cigarette manufacturers, wholesalers, marketing and product range as well as the retail outlets.  Because of the way a page move works on Wikipedia, this is not a deletion.  Vape shop would not be a redlink, the existing content would be ported over, and the history would not be deleted, so at a technical level what I'm advocating counts as a "keep" outcome, even though I don't believe that it's a particularly good idea to have an article specifically about vape shops on Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/C 23:57, 5 December 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.