Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electronic hookah

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 redirect to Electronic cigarette. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic hookah

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

Basically this is a lesser copy of electronic cigarette ridden with advertising and lacking any sourcing. There is no evidence of the topic being independently notable. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:30, 12 Aug 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to electronic cigarette per nom. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to electronic cigarette per nom. The differences are cosmetic at most. All PVs use the same technology whether they're modelled on cigarettes, cigars, shishas, pipes or robot sex toys.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 09:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Put up merge banners and discuss a merge on the article talk page. AfD is not for merge discussions. ~KvnG 15:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been here for two weeks and you want to start a new discussion somewhere else just because of the venue? Point of bureaucracy? Equazcion ^(talk) 16:53, 25 Aug 2013 (UTC)

I want noms to consider merge (even if there's nothing useful to merge from) WP:BEFORE bringing articles to AfD. Working it out issues like this on article talk pages instead of AfD reduces bureaucracy. ~KvnG 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it wasn't, for better or worse, and starting the discussion again at this point would be unnecessary bureaucracy. Additionally, while some merges are appropriate for talk pages, I feel this particular one is an AfD issue because it's a question of notability rather than form. A discussion about whether an independent article should exist due to notability concerns should take place at AfD, whether or not there's an existing article it can be redirected to in the end. Finally, the topic is not independently notable -- as mentioned below, the technology being described is electronic cigarette technology in a slightly different cosmetic form, and if you do the slightest bit of cursory research on the technology you'll find that out easily. "Electronic hookah" is not an article that can be developed adequately. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:57, 26 Aug 2013 (UTC)

- There's nothing in it worth merging anyway. So-called "electronic hookahs" are just rebadged e-cigs. The devices are exactly the same and the e-cig article makes clear that the devices are also sometimes called e-hookah or e-shisha.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 17:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not developed well enough for me to to assess this claim. They certainly look different. ~KvnG 21:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because the intention is clearly promotional. Deb (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2013 (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.