Wikipedia:Deletion review: Difference between revisions
Malinaccier (talk | changes) →Electronic Cigarette:: Support undeletion |
|||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
*{{support}} undeletion - per article at enwp [[:en:E-cigarette]] --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] ([[User talk:Matilda|talk]]) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
*{{support}} undeletion - per article at enwp [[:en:E-cigarette]] --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] ([[User talk:Matilda|talk]]) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
**Note - undeletion request required as discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette]] concluded delete and merge --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] ([[User talk:Matilda|talk]]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
**Note - undeletion request required as discussion at [[Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette]] concluded delete and merge --[[User:Matilda|Matilda]] ([[User talk:Matilda|talk]]) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
||
*{{support}} undeletion. There is an article on the English Wikipedia and it appears notable enough. <font face="georgia">'''[[User:Malinaccier|Malinaccier]] ([[User talk:Malinaccier|talk]])'''</font> 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 22:20, 23 November 2008
If you think a page should not have been deleted or speedy deleted, please list it here and say why. Users can then comment to reach an agreement on whether the community thinks the deletion was right, or the page should be undeleted. Each user can say if he or she wants to restore the page, or keep it deleted, with a brief comment, and sign with ~~~~.
A page should stay listed here for at least five (5) days. After five days, an administrator will decide if there is a consensus (agreement) about what to do. If the consensus is to undelete, the admin should restore the page. If the consensus was that the deletion was correct, the discussion should be closed with a note saying this.
2008 requests
Electronic Cigarette:
I don't know if this is the right place to put this, but i would like to petition that the page for "Electronic Cigarette" be undeleted[1]. It was decided to port the definition for electronic cigarette to the page describing NRT[2] but this is incorrect as the World Health Organisation has issued a press listed requesting that no electronic cigarette device cannot be described as an NRT as there have been no recognised tests or studies completed to back-up this claim.[3]
Furthermore, anyone now searching for electronic cigarette is directed to a page listed as "E-cigarette"[4].While the terms "e-cigarette" and "e-cig" are popular terms used to in place of "electronic cigarette" on account of their brevity, they are in fact claimed to be trade-marks registered to Cixi E-cig[5], one manufacturer of electronic cigarettes of many in China, though it might be the case that their trademarks have become a victim of "genericide"[6]. I propose that the page listed as "e-cigarette" is changed to "electronic cigarette", the umbrella term for all of these devices.
- Hello there, according to EU legislation[7] these cigarettes have been declared as "drugs" (mainly because of their repository of nicotine, or nicotine-like substances). Like the other "nikotine-replacement theapies" their effectiveness is not great (between 5 and 15% of smokers can quit smoking using a NRT)[8] I therefore think our current classification is adequate, Smokeless Cigarettes/Electronic Cigarettes are nothing else than a re-packaged nikotine patch. As an alternative: expand the section on them in NRT, and we could again move it to its own article.--Eptalon (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
although they might serve a purpose as an NRT they were first invented by ruyan as a smoking alternative to allow smokers to "smoke" where there are restrictions in place to prevent them from doing so. They were never intended to act as an NRT although some traders decided to market clones of Ruyan's initial invention as smoking cessation devices. to quote the World Health Organisation:
19 September 2008 | GENEVA -- Contrary to what some marketers of the electronic cigarette imply in their advertisements, the World Health Organization (WHO) does not consider it to be a legitimate therapy for smokers trying to quit.
"The electronic cigarette is not a proven nicotine replacement therapy," said Dr Ala Alwan, Assistant Director-General of WHO's Noncommunicable Diseases and Mental Health Cluster. "WHO has no scientific evidence to confirm the product's safety and efficacy. Its marketers should immediately remove from their web sites and other informational materials any suggestion that WHO considers it to be a safe and effective smoking cessation aid."
In order for a product to be classed as an NRT, they must undergo a series of clinical studies. No electronic cigarette has undergone these studies. They are not an NRT as they cannot be classed as such. They are correctly described as an alternative to tobacco. They are not under the jurisdiction of the FDA in america. They are not under the jurisdiction of the ATF
- References
- ↑ Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette
- ↑ http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine_replacement_therapy
- ↑ http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2008/pr34/en/
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-cigarette
- ↑ https://e-cig.com/shopping/shopcontent.asp?type=article5
- ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genericized_trademark
- ↑ directive 83 EC 2001 English_PDF
- ↑ Andrew Molyneux (2004). "ABC of smoking cessation - Nicotine replacement therapy" (pdf). pp. 454–456.
Support undeletion - per article at enwp en:E-cigarette --Matilda (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Note - undeletion request required as discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2008/Electronic cigarette concluded delete and merge --Matilda (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support undeletion. There is an article on the English Wikipedia and it appears notable enough. Malinaccier (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
- Archived requests are here
- Please list newer requests at the top.