Talk:Canadian Anti-Smoking Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 October 2005. The result of the discussion was move.

Erm, this is a Government of Ontario initiative, so "Canadian Anti-Smoking Campaign" seems a trifle too general. --Saforrest 04:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Does the article listed below here really deserve mention? It adds nothing except someone's editorial on the matter. 3:05. Feb 14/06


I say this page is alright, but I never liked their ad campaigns anyways. They compare smoking by say something like---" you have a one in a million chance of dieing from using a toaster in a tub, and a one in three chance of dieing from smoking"---

Well, you have a one in one chance of dieing no matter what you do with your life... lol --64.230.70.78 01:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed re-move

The new title on this article is not appropriate. The content refers to a provincial campaign, and calling it "Canadian" implies a national character. Using title case suggests that this is an official name of the campaign, which it is not. In the context of the page content, the title also implies that stupid.ca is the only anti-smoking campaign in Canada. Given these problems, I think we have three options with this page:

  • Move to something more specific, such as the title of the stupid.ca campaign as used by the provincial government. I'm having a hard time tracking down this name: This press release would seem to indicate that the original title of this page wasn't so bad after all.
  • Move to something more general, such as "Anti-smoking campaigns in Canada" (or Ontario), and flesh out the page accordingly - recognizing that the present content of the article would be a very small part of the content over the long run.
  • Delete it, which was unsuccessfully attempted before. Personally, I don't think that the stupid.ca program deserves a Wikipedia entry. The fact that this article remains in stub status - with only three small edits since April - would seem to suggest that it cannot be given serious treatment by Wikipedia.

-Joshuapaquin 18:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)