Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ubie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 'Speedy delete' per CSD:G4 (previous AfD was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Smokeless). Owen× ☎ 00:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Ubie

This reads like ad copy, however well-intentioned. As a side note, I've put several style tags on the article, and they've all been removed. Bjones 21:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Very tiny merge to Tobacco-related article of choice. I didn't see any google hits that weren't the mentioned site from the article, which hurts it for verifyablility. And yes, it would need some npov rewrite if someone were to try to merge it. Also I placed a warning on the author's talk page about removing {{afd}} tags. --Syrthiss 22:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KEEP. It's odd that someone wants to delete this article after so many years--And with no discussion! I removed those tags because the POV and style were edited to conform with wikipedia's high standards. I invented the Ubie because smoking KILLS 3000 people per DAY. This product makes money just like wikipedia's employees. Products that do not make money do not get to exist and save people's lives. This article was on wikipedia for months before some small band of goofballs decided that they only way they coudl compete with a guy who cured 27% of all cancer was to oppose him. The article is a simple encyclopedic entery about a total change in the way people smoke. Nobody would oppose this article unless they want to prevent people from learning about The Ubie or want the cigarette business for themsleves. Either way. It's a crime against humanity to oppose this article. It is not within wiki's charter to withold life saving information from the public on ligitimate topics covered by the site. FACT: The Ubie exists. Like pipes, Cigarettes, Cigars etc.. It is a smoking device unlike others. It is not simply a vaporizer which have traditionally required all kinds of plug in crap.. It is a truly portable lighter powered cigarette alternitive. This is a vital peice of information about smoking. Pipes have a page. The Ubie Has a (much more concice) Page. I was actually quite timid in introducing text about the ubie since the invention completely changes the history of Tobacco, Cigaretts and Pipes. It is a whole new concept merging aspects of each and it can save 90% of the 3000 lives that are lost every DAY to smokeing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.42.84 (talk • contribs) 17:42, December 1, 2005
  • Keep An informed opinion is worth more twice the helter-skelter deletion mindset. It's obvious that these are the kind of people who jump on sandcastles rather than build them. let others benifit and stop the sour grapes --go change smoking yourself. Save Lives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.42.84 (talk • contribs) 17:42, December 1, 2005
  • Delete per nomSpeedy Delete under CSD:G4; bad faith of user 207.106.42.84 and 207.106.42.89 also weigh heavily against the article. Peyna 22:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment This was deleted just 4 days ago; should be speedied for recreating a recently AfD'd page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Smokeless (simultaneous AfD for American Smokeless and Ubie) Peyna 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an ad. (It's a repost, so i also put the speedy delete tag on it.) - Bobet 23:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - smokeless cigarette has value here. I have heard of such things. If we already have an article on smokeless cigarettes, then merge this to them. Zordrac 23:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Smokeless, the original nomination had 1 vote - to keep - yet was deleted. Ergo the process was not correctly followed, and it is therefore legitimate to recreate the page. Whoever deleted original article went against correct procedures in deleting an article without discussion. Zordrac 23:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Look at the page history for that; it has been modified and many delete votes were removed after the discussion was closed. Please research before making such claims. I have reverted that AfD to the version that existed when it was closed. Peyna 23:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Since I didn't specifically say it before, Delete. Articles on smokeless cigarettes are one thing. This is a product endorsement of a particular sc.Bjones 23:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - not changing my vote. IMO vandalism is irrelevant to deciding whether an article should remain. It has merit in its own right as a valid substance, which is in common use. Its quite well known. Zordrac 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Vandalism or not, this was already voted down 4 days ago following procedure and nothing has changed about the article. Undeletion is the proper forum for such a discussion if it is really necessary. Recreating a recently deleted page is grounds for a Speedy Delete under CSD:G4 (Recreation of deleted material.) Peyna 00:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The article has no rational detractors. There is no product quite like the ubie. There are articles for cigarettes, vaporizers and pipes. The ubie fits all of them but it is also unique, which is why it has such life saving potential. It is sugested that wiki create a smokeless cigarette catagory.. That's not a bad idea.. But the ubie is not only a smokeless cigarette. It's also a pipe and a vaporizer. It's The Ubie. So it needs a page else one is constantly trying to describe that MOST cigarettes burn tobacco.. and MOST pupes burn tobacco and MOST vaporizers this or that.. The Ubie is a Ubique cultural artifact. For crying outloud.. there's an article on paperclips.. don't you think an artifact that can save 2700 lives per day warents a blerb? These people are just being stupid. The article was hotly attacked the moment it was posted which sugests some kind of motive beyind editorial precision. What is the motive for deletng it? Tobacco industry shills? I invented the ubie to save lives. What are the opposition's intentions? To jump on sandcastles? Or does the idea of squeltching schan important peice of information give them a rise? Is there an article on AZT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.106.42.107 (talk • contribs) 18:42, December 1, 2005
    • Please put future comments at the END of the discussion and not at the beginning. Peyna 23:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article's author says "I invented the Ubie..." That's all I need to hear. Rhobite 23:52, 1 December 2005 (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.