Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoking in the UK

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 was keep. Consensus seems to be that this can be rescued. m.o.p 05:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Smoking in the UK

Smoking in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks more like an essay and includes no references. —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I disagree with the user that has requested it is deleted. It is a new article and we can expect it will be improved soon. Most other countries have a article relating to this important subject. Why can't the United Kingdom have one?! This request is not useful in anyway to Wikipedia. Robjp21019 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've restored the nomination tag since it informs readers of the ongoing discussion — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The subject seems encyclopedic enough, and there are many articles covering it for other countries (see [1], although one of them is actually a song :P). There was an article for Smoking in England but it was moved to Smoking ban in England since the contents dealt only with the ban itself. The article doesn't have any references right now, but it was nominated not 20 minutes after creation, and it isn't unreasonable to expect that there will be sources available on this particular topic, so I think that this was a hasty nomination — Frankie (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Delete The article has to be judged on its own merits: what other articles exist is irrelevant. This article is completely unsourced, and, as the nomination says, reads more like an essay than an encyclopaedia article. It is debatable whether or not the subject "seems encyclopedic enough", but without a doubt this article doesn't. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• The existence of other articles is not entirely irrelevant as it allows us to assess what is the current standard of the community on the topic. That doesn't mean that it should be kept for that sole reason, as there are other circumstances that could bar its inclusion. In this case, though, the usual suspects (namely non-notability, BLP concerns, and copyvio) are nowhere to be found. As for the article's prose or referencing, that is something to be addressed through regular editing, not deletion — Frankie (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Why so hasty to delete wikipedia?! I will help develop this important page. Maybe you should look to improving an article before deleting it as wikipedia recommends Robjp21019 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

: Keep it to one vote please. Second vote striped. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, feel I have corrected the problem. Robjp21019 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rescue - There are certainly problems with the article: with puffery and NPOV, and the fact that it is unreferenced. However, these are not insurmountable and the topic itself is notable. I've tagged the article for rescue. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rescue. I was going to say merge, but I can't find any obvious merge destination. There is nowhere obvious to put this in the Smoking article, and there are various things related to smoking in the UK dotted all over the place (e.g. Smoking ban, No Smoking day etc.). If no-one has time to properly rescue this article, this can temporarily be made into an index of all the other articles relevant to smoking in the UK. That would still be messy, but I can't think of an easier solution. Chris Neville-Smith (talk)

• Useful Comment. Thought some might be interested to know that the article has and is being improved. Any delete voters may want to revisit the page. Robjp21019 (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I have no doubt that many reliable sources have given coverage to this subject. Have one section listing the laws, one listing its history, a section to show how it was once advertised, how common it was throughout history and why, etc. Dream Focus 02:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Merge I think it would be good to merge it with Smoking under a new heading. What do you think? —>εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 07:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• Note that there are 30 articles like this by country. The one for England is a redirect, but could be a full article now that content has been created. Dream Focus 13:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There are sufficient materials for the individual countries. The legislation and customs tend to be very specific. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Numerous sources for this topic can be readily found such as Young people, gender and smoking in the United Kingdom, The effect of advertising on total consumption of cigarettes in the UK, The burden of smoking-related ill health in the UK, A microeconometric analysis of smoking in the UK, &c. The complaint that it looks like an essay is nonsensical as the content has no personal content or opinion. Warden (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Its good for a start. Article would improve with time. Earlyriser10 (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2011 (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.