The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article with a non-notable topic. Basically only describes one particular cigarette substitute, the electronic cigarette, for which there is already a more extensive article. Lists patents for some other devices, however those listed actually don't fall under the definition of a "cigarette substitute" given by the article. Sources given are just links to patent descriptions. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to my mention of replacing the article's content, that was merely my presenting what I think is the only alternative to deletion. In other words, I feel the present article should be deleted, but that the topic still has merit, so replacing the content entirely would accomplish the same goal -- but if not that then I think it needs to be deleted.
I'm not against expanding stubs, but this doesn't seem to just be a stub. It seems to be useless content, which is usually deleted, no matter the length of the article. Just in case there's any confusion, I again want to stress the fact that I'm not commanding you or anyone to do any editing. I'm just presenting the general options for the article, as I see them. Equazcion •✗/ C • 16:42, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
Delete I'm sick of the wikilawyering to try to keep bad articles. It's better to remove ones that can't be salvaged then keep them around. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. Stifle ( talk) 12:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC) reply
Unnecessary article with a non-notable topic. Basically only describes one particular cigarette substitute, the electronic cigarette, for which there is already a more extensive article. Lists patents for some other devices, however those listed actually don't fall under the definition of a "cigarette substitute" given by the article. Sources given are just links to patent descriptions. Equazcion •✗/ C • 22:31, 27 Dec 2008 (UTC)
If you're referring to my mention of replacing the article's content, that was merely my presenting what I think is the only alternative to deletion. In other words, I feel the present article should be deleted, but that the topic still has merit, so replacing the content entirely would accomplish the same goal -- but if not that then I think it needs to be deleted.
I'm not against expanding stubs, but this doesn't seem to just be a stub. It seems to be useless content, which is usually deleted, no matter the length of the article. Just in case there's any confusion, I again want to stress the fact that I'm not commanding you or anyone to do any editing. I'm just presenting the general options for the article, as I see them. Equazcion •✗/ C • 16:42, 1 Jan 2009 (UTC)
Delete I'm sick of the wikilawyering to try to keep bad articles. It's better to remove ones that can't be salvaged then keep them around. DreamGuy ( talk) 16:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply