Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Smokeless

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 of the debate was delete. Rob e rt ^{T | @ | C} 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Smokeless, The Ubie[edit]

Delete as advertising - and bad faith at that. The product claims to be for the consumption of tobacco but there is 'hidden' text relating to marijuana & THC on the linked site's front page as well as the coolest crack pipe ('The Ubie') that I have ever seen. Eddie.willers 19:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Ubie should be added to this nomination. Pilatus 19:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatent advertising Ian 13 19:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is wrong on too many levels to count. Durova 19:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them both. Pilatus 19:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - lame attempt at advertising from an unnotable company. Anything useful contained within can be incorporated into vaporizer (from where the link to The Ubie can also be removed). btw, whether it can be used for smoking cannabis or crack or dried kittens has no bearing on its potential relevance - it needs to go simply because it's advertising and because it's not a significant enough product (or company) to deserve an article here. If it revolutionises smoking in ten years, by all means bring it back. ;) - toh 19:36, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The American Smokeless article can surely be deleted, as it really is nothing but advertising, but I think the article on The Ubie should be kept, and possibly expanded, so as to appear less of an advertisement and more of a description of the invention and it's function. Tobacco links to The Ubie article, and it does seem to describe an alternative to traditional smoking. Judgements about the company's choices of marketing, however unfortunate those choices might be to our point of view, don't detract from the existence of the item itself. I think it deserves an entry. Also, I don't think the idea of waiting ten years to see if the technology is widely adopted to be realistic, otherwise we'd have to delete articles on the Itanium and the XBox 360, for example. The article may have started as a blatant ad, but we can make it into something better, rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater. (I haven't yet done so, since there's no point in expending effort to improve the article until the VfD is resolved, but if the article stays, I will step up.) SleepyHappyDoc 19:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As another poster noted, it's really an already existing device (most often used for crack these days) that's simply being sold for tobacco - probably in part to appear legit in the face of possible criticism, in part to try and create a new marketing application. The question is really whether it deserves a separate article, and it's difficult to see that it does. It could warrant a mention in an expanded crackpipe article, and be linked from the articles on tobacco smoking that way, or it could be treated as a subset of vaporisers. Consider also that if it is successful as a nicotine delivery device, competitors will apply the same rather trivial technology and sell their own versions, which won't be called The Ubie. - toh 02:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.