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 no consensus. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain smoking[edit]

Chain smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article has absolutely no references and has been tagged for lack of references for over a year. It is really not encyclopedic, but more of a dictionary definition. The largest part of article is simply a list of notable people the article lists as chain smokers. But the list has no references and could present a wp: BLP issue for some of the living subjects. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as dictionary definition and unsourced BLPery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Chain Delete. Sir Winston in this lineup of "rich and famous" ... what a disgrace. NVO (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We already have it on wiktionary and I fail to see anything this article can add beyond the definition. And the BLP issues only add to my opinion. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I removed the potential BLP issue at the beginning of May, but it was re-added when I wasn't paying attention. Removed it because, well, it's a potential BLP issue. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Plenty of reliable sources can be found here, here, and here. Sebwite (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't so much about a lack of reliable sources. Chain smoking really does exist and nobody disputes that. What IS at dispute is whether an article needs to exist on it, rather than a dictionary entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The main problem with this article is that it is short; it simply has not been written. But there is a lot that can be written based on the hundreds of available sources. Being a stub or otherwise a short article is not grounds for deletion. On Wikipedia, there is no deadline when it comes to page construction. Deleting this article would be demolishing the house while it is still being built. This is a classic case of an article that needs to be given a chance. Sebwite (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article is 5 years old. I submit that it has certainly had a chance. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't matter if it is 5 or even 10 years. That is not the issue. People have to know that an article exists in the first place to be able to improve it. Sebwite (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm just saying.....5 years, links to nearly 100 articles....not hard to find, so the "give it time" reasoning isn't really resonating with me. And my reason for the delete isn't that it's short, it's that this is better suited to be a dictionary entry, not an encyclopedic topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is plenty of reliable sources available to take this way beyond a dicdef. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NAD. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge anything useful to Smoking, an article that mainly covers the smoking of tobacco - recent additions seem to indicate some encyclopedic value, but not enough to justify a seperate article. Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator wants references? I just added a couple - it was easy as there are thousands of sources out there. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: No, the nominator doesn't really want references. Of course there are references to it. It's more a matter of this not being an encyclopedic topic, but instead being better suited for a dictionary. I thought I was pretty clear about that in the nomination, but maybe the bold print will get your attention this time. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some citations to encyclopedias to demonstrate that your contention is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't change my nomination. I stick by it. For example, your "source" about chain smoking being a symptom of addictive behavior....a symptom. Counting the number of steps you take every time you walk somewhere is a symptom of illness too, but I don't think we need an article on that either. Just because someone uses the phrase, you want it to be a "source". Your response almost borders on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, just in other books. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see our article on counting steps which is done for many reasons. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I know WHY one might count steps, but that article is about a DEVICE that does that function, which is different. Either you completely missed the point (which I doubt) or you are being something else. Further discussion with you will clearly not be productive. Obviously I wasn't the only person who though deleting it was a good idea, so regardless of the outcome, I am fine with my nomination. I just did what others are thinking. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about you, but since you raise the point, please note the correct process to be followed when you feel an article lacks merit. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Smoking Keep or merge into Smoking (new sources found; see below). The mentioned "sources" don't seem to provide any actual information about the phenomenon. "was drinking beer" returns 525 Google Scholar and 2,450 Google News results. According to that logic, was drinking beer would also easily pass both WP:N and WP:V. If there are no sources that specifically address the subject—and I couldn't find such sources myself—I'd say it clearly falls under WP:NOTDIC. — Rankiri (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "was drinking beer" is a sentence fragment. Sentence fragments are generally not notable for articles. We all know that. But "chain smoking" is not just a term. It is a concept, and the sources show it is a concept. Concepts if properly sourced or even if they can be are by far notable for articles. Already, this article, though short, describes some aspects about chain smoking. This goes beyond simply defining it. It is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. That alone with the other sources should make it notable. True, the article is short, but an article being short is not a criteria for deletion. Sebwite (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The point being that if a concept is unsourced, it's not a notable concept. Most of the Google Scholar and Google News results use the term in a manner very similar to my earlier "was drinking beer", to describe excessive use of tobacco in general and not some specific medical term in particular: "her eyes stared into space; anxiety was manifested as hand-twisting, leg-crossing, lip-biting and chain smoking", "in front of the television, chain smoking, immobile, passive", "she was chain-smoking while talking and occasionally laughed nervously." This is not not what I would call reliable sources and nontrivial coverage. Additionally, if you don't like "was drinking beer", "excessive smoking" returns 2,600 Google Scholar and 1,470 Google News results. Trivial results like that don't establish notability. — Rankiri (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a lot of them may have some trivial mention. But being in the DSM-IV is not trivial. In other words, it is an actual medical disorder, and medical disorders are generally notable. If you were to google the term "violent crime" for example, you may get a lot of hits in which the phrase has some trivial meaning. But the phrase Violent crime refers to an actual cultural phenomenon and a social problem, just like "chain smoking" does. Before ruling this out as "trivial," I would look at each and every one of those hits. All it takes is just a few to be notable. Sebwite (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I'm not claiming that notable sources on the subject don't exist. I'm saying that indiscriminate Google Scholar and News results cannot be counted as valid replacement for actual nontrivial sources and that I wasn't successful in finding any of such sources myself. If the only thing we can agree on is the definition, then WP:NOTDIC does seem to be the most appropriate guideline. — Rankiri (talk) 23:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nom's issues were: 1.) BLP, 2.) no refs, 3.) dicdef. The BLP issue has been solved with the removal of the list of names. The ref issue has been solved with several reliable sources being added. And the dicdef issue has been solved, as several facts, that would not be contained in a dictionary, albeit short, have been added. Being short does not automatically classify something as a dicdef. If you read the article as it is, it does not look like what you would find in a dictionary. A dictionary simply defines a word or phrase, and perhaps tells about its origin. A dictionary will not provide info like the causes of a disorder. Sebwite (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, what reliable sources are you talking about? I just rechecked all five references given on Chain smoking and none of them indicate notability. Please, correct me if I'm wrong:

Reference 1 is restricted, but from what I can see, the author clearly makes no distinction between compulsive smoking and chain smoking and only uses the phrase once, in a highly colloquial manner: "The chain smoker is another example. Dr.Mandell believes that the truly compulsive smoker's body craves what will really harm him the most."

Reference 2 only seems to contain the following quote: "Even in nonsmokers, co-use of crack and nicotine results in chain smoking."

Reference 3, one trivial mention: "In the DSM-IV chain-smoking is given as an example of a great deal of time being devoted to substance use. But chain-smoking is usually combined with other activities...

Reference 5 places its only actual, highly insignificant mention of chain smoking in quotes:"...a "chain smoker" (continuous smoking and therefore not realistic for long time periods) requires a high rate of ventilation air to maintain a low concentration of RSPs in a perfectly mixed room..."

Reference 4 is the only one that could possibly be considered as a viable source, but, from the bits and pieces I can see, it only gives the term a very brief introduction and then goes on to define it in a very specific context of its own clinical research.

   One disputably applicable source is not a sign of notability, and I still see no good reason to treat the term as an encyclopedic concept and not an common idiom it so convincingly appears to be. From WP:NOTDIC: All stubs should have the potential to develop into full articles. A stub that has no possibility whatsoever for expansion beyond stub status is presenting the verifiable information in the wrong way... Per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy, stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope, that can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status, or deleted... — Rankiri (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: DSM-IV contains two highly trivial uses of the phrase and does not address the subject in any significant detail. As seen on Amazon, the book's index doesn't list the term at all. — Rankiri (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTDIC was solved? Really? In your OPINION it was solved. Others here seem to feel this is nothing more than adding to something that is nothing more than a dictionary definition. Please don't confuse your opinion with a "solution". Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - When coming across an article with no references, it is best to find references for the article and add them rather than moving to delete the article. This is a legitimate term, and a great deal can be written about with sources. Kingturtle (talk) 20:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, when trying to defend an article with no references, it is best to search for references by your own instead of voting keep with no regard to the fact that all previous attempts to find reliable sources have failed. Besides, I don't see how classifying the article as WP:DICDEF can make any impact on the legitimacy of the term. — Rankiri (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not sure if there hasn't been some canvassing going on with respect to this nomination.[1] Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What makes asking someone to render an opinion "canvassing"? Have you read WP:CANVASS? The request was neutrally worded. It simply asks the editor to look at the AfD. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, you chose to leave your note to an editor who claims on his user page to be a "proud deletionist/reductionist," who makes no claim I can see to a particular interest in the particular topic of the nomination. See the "Votestacking" section of WP:CANVASS: "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." But if there is some reason you chose to inform this particular user of the AfD for some reason other than the view on deletions he expresses on his userpage, then I apologize for my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As I pointed out on your talk page, I listed several AfD discussions for him. 2 are contested, the others are well on their way to deletion. You ignored that and only left your "warning" on the 2 that are contested. No warning posted on the ones that the community is clearly voting to delete. There is no logic in your selectivity. If you feel there was "votes stacking" on 2, it should have been on all of them. If the same neutrally worded message was not "vote stacking" for the others, then it isn't for this one. In other words, your actions betray your excuse. Further, I didn't even look at the editors userpage, I went straight to his talk page, having seen him involved in several of the AfD discussions I participated in today. Feel free to check and see that I've OPPOSED some AfD's from that particular editor and haven't ever posted to his user page before. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only left comments (not warnings) that I am "not sure" if canvassing is occurring on the pages for which any canvassing would be relevant. For the 2 that are obvious deletions, who cares whether or not any canvassing is occurring? Why bother leaving a comment on those? And I don't see why you would want me to - if my comment was incorrect (or even if it was correct), I wouldn't think you would want me to repeat it to an even wider audience. Since you state that you did not read the editor's user page and say that you were unaware of his clear deletionist sympathies when you left the note, then there was obviously a misunderstanding, and I retract my comment. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's pretty simple. If "vote stacking" was happening, then it was happening on all the ones listed, not just the 2 that are contested. The fact that I listed several, including ones that, by your own admission, didn't need his vote at all, should have given you pause and reason to WP:AGF instead of selectively making assertions of wrong-doing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are correct. If vote stacking was happenning, it was happenning at all 4 AfDs. But I only chose to bother commenting on the 2 where I thought it mattered. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• And it wouldn't make sense to stack it in the ones that aren't even close. And now that editor has voted as merge and re-direct....which kind of hurts your theory.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to smoking. The article has morphed from primarily being a random list of names of chain-smokers to primarily being a content fork.Tyrenon (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep and Cleanup. Yes, the article needs improvement but I say NO MERGE for multiple reasons. (1) The page on Smoking is already very long and I will not stand by making it any longer. (2) This topic is clearly notable as a topic in and of itself: [2] shows 4700+ hits, [3] shows ~21,500 hits. There are scientific definitions of chain smoking and the topic has been studied extensively in scientific work published in peer-reviewed journals. This is FAR above and beyond coverage necessary to justify a standalone page. The evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of this topic needing a stand-alone page. Let's turn our discussion on how to improve the page and not get lost in misguided ideas of deleting material just because it's bad. Cazort (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please point me to those scientific definitions of chain smoking or any of scientific works published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss it? If you can't, please take a look at my earlier comments about irrelevance of the search results you just mentioned. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please read the article which cites Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior which is peer-reviewed. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you were the one who introduced the reference, I assume you can also give us more details about its coverage of chain smoking? "Chain smoking" "Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior" shows no evidence that the article uses "chain smoking" as a concept and not an ordinary synonym for "continuous smoking":

Effects of chain-smoking, a 15-h smoking abstinence, and the nicotine yield of cigarettes on puff indices were studied in eight healthy smokers by using a controlled crossover study design. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1631188) — Rankiri (talk) 01:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it could get any more explicit and directly relavant than this--The effect on expiratory flow rates of smoking three cigarettes in rapid succession.--in terms of studying chain smoking. And that article does use the term. That's one article of many. Cazort (talk) 02:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I count 6 delete votes, 5 keep and 2 redirect. How do you read that as "overwhelmingly in favor" of the topic being a stand-alone? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote. I said the evidence, not the "vote" count, was overwhelmingly in favor. People arguing to delete have made comments about the page being unsourced, but have not addressed the fact that a wealth of good sources exist. And people arguing to delete based on BLP concerns? What relevance does this have? That's grounds for removing BLP material from the article--and I totally agree with these concerns and the offending material has already been removed--so it's a moot point. Given the fact that the article has been changed those comments seem to no longer apply at all. Cazort (talk) 02:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not imagine things. The reason I've been so active on this discussion is because it's ridden with WP:ATA arguments like WP:GHITS or WP:IKNOWIT, personal opinions, "hit-and-run" votes, false referencing and other misleading fluff that had no verifiable supportive evidence behind it. Most editors voted keep without examining the Google Scholar results, even though it's quite clear that most of those results don't acknowledge "chain smoking" as a concept and only use it as an loosely defined colloquialism. Since false references and unsupported claims of alleged notability can't be counted as legitimate sources, the article link you provided yesterday leads to the first actual source in this entire conversation. It's not perfect but it's a good start. I'm changing my original position to Keep or merge with Smoking. — Rankiri (talk) 14:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that google hits alone doesn't ever argue anything, and that merely a phrase occurring in many reliable sources doesn't mean that it's a useful and notable concept. Now that you have explained your arguments, I agree that this is not as clear-cut as I thought it was...yes, it's a colloquialism, but its use in peer-reviewed journals, certainly not always exactly consistent from one article to the next, usually corresponds rather roughly to the common-usage of the term. The way I see the scientific articles is that there's a rather loose concept, which is hard to pin down exactly, but is nonetheless an important topic in and of itself, important enough for researchers to study it--although researchers typically choose their own definition to fit their needs of what they are trying to study. I do see the room for argument here--that it's not quite well-defined enough; it is a bit nebulous I admit. But I think the different usages of the term fall close-enough together that it's worth keeping. Cazort (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are numerous topics which are difficult to define exactly, such as socialism, and many of these are scientific, such as dark energy. There is no policy argument for deletion on these grounds. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say it was a vote. It was a short way of summing up what has transpired so far. Others here have been disputing some of those "good sources". It's not "overwhelmingly in favor", no matter how you try to spin it. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty notable, goes far beyond a dicdef. Cleanup, don't merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: You can expand this article, but it will just be a lot of writing over something that can be explained in just one sentence. Put it in adictionary and leave it. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.3.53.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Damn! I make an edit and it takes 30 seconds for someone to come in and start labelling me a SPA. I've made 20 other edits today about 20 other topics. How many does it take before I'm not a SPA? 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on this discussion. — Rankiri (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just looked at the account, ......you templated him/her 4 minutes after his/her first vote. Then went to something like 15-20 different articles and posted the same tamplate. I've looked at them and I saw more than the one you claimed that was WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:JNN. These are something more than JNN: [4] , [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10] and this article. In all those I listed, the editor did more than just say "not notable" and in NONE of them did the editor do a WP:JUSTAVOTE. You also failed to add that he/she voted to keep or redirect in 3-4 of them too. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do. I also suggest to take a closer look at WP:SOCKPUPPET and WP:POINT while you're at it. — Rankiri (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then let's get to the point. Did you just accuse me of using a sockpuppet account?? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Tobacco smoking. Unmerge if content is created which justifies it. Disembrangler (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and merge to Smoking or to Tobacco smoking. The WP:LENGTH concerns are valid but this topic is not yet ready to be broken out. No prejudice against making it an article when someone is ready to write a good one at Chain smoking. JJL (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.