Talk:Pax Labs

Merge Juul (electronic cigarette)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I am going to do a quick close here, as I am the primary proponent against merge, I believe due to the length of the article a merge is fine, I assume no objections, if there are feel free to revert. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

---

This article is not notable enough to be stand alone. Thus I propose merging here.

Support

• As proposer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• support per proposers rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• support not sufficiently notable for its own article. Needs more mainstream mention. Jim1138 (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
• support This article just covers the same ground as PAX Labs, each of which is barely notable, if that. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Editor appears to have COI issues and has made multiple improper warnings as seen here and here. He also made a personal attack in his opening rationale using the phrase "shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner" and then refused to apologize as a sign of good faith. He also refused to discuss this further and warned me for posting on his talk page. All these are sign of bad faith editing and should be avoided. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The usual attempt to smear anybody who disagrees with your agenda of promoting this product. I've seen it more times than you've had hot dinners, and I don't suppose this will be last time. Now address the issues and quit the ad hominems --RexxS (talk) 00:59, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you now? You must be a bad faith editor. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge for another brand from the same company. Notability does not guarantee a stand alone article. Two (or even three) small paragraphs is not enough content for a separate article. They have received some mainstream attention, but it is not enough for a separate article, especially when one can include it here for an improved reader experience. Don't send readers to read another article when they can alternatively reader all about it in one place. QuackGuru (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support — This really isn't notable. It fails general notability criteria. That a brand has a strong following online or a strong group that intentionally creates lots of Wikipedia articles is no reason to keep the article. Carl Fredrik ^talk 12:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose I see several independent articles on both PAX Labs and Juul. Both seem to be notable. I think people are mistaking lacking prose in the articles with notability. The Wired[1], Engadget[2] and Chicago Tribune[3] articles are specifically about the Juul vaporizer, while the Business Insider[4][5] articles seem to be about the company and its innovations. --Kim D. Petersen 19:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The key issue is not notability, although the quality of the sources makes that debatable. The actual issue is that the sources seem to be able to support about two to three paragraphs of content. So why would two tiny articles be better than a single, slightly larger one? --RexxS (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually the only issue with regards to articles is: notability. And as far as i can tell we have all requirements for WP:GNG. (for both PAX Labs (Business insider ..), and the Juul (Wired,Chicago Tribune, Engadget) --Kim D. Petersen 00:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Meeting GNG "creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" - the wording of Wikipedia:Notability #General notability guideline. Now, what is your reason that the content of Juul should be a stand-alone article, rather than being covered in PAX Labs? The two topics are inextricably linked and a single article will easily cover everything found so far in sources. --RexxS (talk) 02:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that it is. There might be issues outside of notability that have influence. But notability is the only real issue with regards to whether an article can/should be created. In this particular case, there is significant coverage of the product, which is a rather unique product within its area/range, thus arguing for an article specifically about the product (Juul). The case for PAX Labs is rather more circumspect... but it seems that they are rather innovative (again within their field), and have produced products that stick out from their competitors. And they have received rather substantial coverage as well. Thus the argument should be for more prose/content - not whether it is substantially enough coverage to have independent articles. --Kim D. Petersen 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

See WP:MERGEREASON: "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there)." What is the benefit of having a stub on another page when all the content can be in one place? The readability has been greatly improved with the merge. QuackGuru (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose A notable ecigs with mutliple independent sources documenting it. PAX Labs make other products as well. This has received significiant coverage. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 15:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

With respect to significant coverage I would be looking for major mainstream press with more than just passing mention. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Ozzie10aaaa:, @Jim1138:, and @Doc James:, I'm always sadden to see lack of research before coming to make a decision. I am requested this merge go to AfD where I am confident I will survive, I wrote this article in 2015, I haven't updated it since, after all Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, unfortunately this did not happen. Since 2017 there have been over 60 independent sources giving this device significant coverage. There are these sources New York Legal Examiner, The Chronicle, the former is scientific study There isn't a snowball's chance in hell this would be deleted Just to speed things up I would recommend AfD. Or maybe if we decide to work with together, we can expand this article and drop the merge discussion all together. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner. If you want to take this AfD, feel free to do so. The content and sources here cover essentially just the same as those at PAX Labs. There's really no encyclopedic value in providing two lots of free advertising for an unremarkable company and its products. --RexxS (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

By your statements claims all products written by an established user is advertising. This product has received significant attention and is widely used enough that people would be interested in reading about it in an encyclopedia. I've provided third party sources.

It's not received significant mention in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. It fails GNG. It fails WP:PLUG. It fails to have consensus of editors to be separated from its parent article. --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Your second statement needs explaining: Are you suggesting that I work for the company and that I am here in bad faith? I've had over ten years experience so if you really want to go down this path, promise you ANI. I recommend you review my history and my work at DRV. Perhaps you misjudged. Regardless am I not an editor you want to be making such accusations against I am as equally qualified as you. I believe this product passes our GN guidelines which is why I favor keeping not because of your ridiculously "advertising" accusation. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 21:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who you work for and only you know whether you edit in bad faith or not. It's remarkable that an editor with over ten years experience knows so little of the requirements for a stand-alone article, but feel free to try ANI, just don't forget WP:BOOMERANG. I've not misjudged what your doing here: you're defending having two articles when it's obvious that there's barely enough encyclopedic material for one. What your reasons for that mistake are, is something for you to ponder. Don't bother trying to threaten me, because you're obviously nowhere near as qualified as I. The requirements for a stand-alone article are three-fold: (1) it satisfies WP:GNG; (2) it is not disqualified by WP:NOT; (3) it has the consensus of editors that it should be a stand-alone article, rather than a part of a larger article. I heard you the first time you said you believed it meets GNG. But it doesn't. You have still to address WP:NOT, in particular WP:NOTADVERTISING, which it fails. And on top of all that, the consensus forming here is to merge the Juul (electronic cigarette) stub into PAX Labs. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: You sent this in your opening message

“ And I'm always saddened to see a shill desperately trying to preserve free advertising for their company in such a naked manner. ”

This is a personal attack I took the high road and was civil toward, you I said I am equally qualified as you, which is not an insult, and to be more professional in your tone with established editors. The truth is I am FAR more qualified than you. I've been here for ten years and made over 200 articles compared to your 24. Merge discussions and can always be overriden in AfD. I said nothing against you yet instead of apologizing you attack me. This is a clear indication of being not here to build an encyclopedia. You have disqualified yourself from this article discussion. I see you are in your 60s, please act your age.. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 00:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

If you spend any more time trying to defend this advert masquerading as an article, you'll find more than just me comparing you to a shill, whether you are paid or not. As far as I'm concerned, this is a voluntary project and I'm not a professional editor - are you trying to tell me that you are? You have no qualifications to pontificate. If you want a pissing content: I've twice your edits; written featured content; created highly used templates and modules; and – unlike you – I understand WP:Notability. Merge discussions and can always be overriden in AfD - If the article is merged, you're going to take it to AfD? Good luck with that, you'll have my support for deletion. And you really want me to apologise for pointing out how your arguments here appear? I don't know which is funnier. Almost as funny as you thinking you decide where I can edit: "Do not participate in articles I am involved in. Also do not proceed further in the current discussion and we well have no issues going forward." Well here I am, participating in the discussion. What are you going to do about it? I promise you, I'll still be defending this project from articles like this long after you've given up and gone. Now stop being rude to your elders and betters – didn't your mom teach you any manners? --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: How we operate here, is an editor looks at sources such as the sources I provided in the article and the further sources I provided in this discussion. Then we determine if they pass our fundamental GNG principles. These guidelines requires significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject. Am I missing something? I've provided The Verge, Fortune Magazine, Business Insider and WEIRD each giving this specific electronic cigarette significant coverage. I've been here for a long time and written many articles, none of which have been deleted or merged. You are entitled to your opinion assuming you are neutral. If you support a merge you can be friendly and constructive as the other editors above you did. Instead you open by accusing me of advertising and being a shill. I certain don't appreciated being called a "shill". If you review my history you can see I've written articles in a wide range of subjects. The goal of an encyclopedia is to writing from a neutral point of view which allows reader to understand the subject in question, which I believe this article has. These sources allow this device to pass our GNG. This is a policy based reason for the separation of this article, and my argument founded in our guidelines. This is how people who are here to build an encyclopedia engage. Your attitude doesn't match your age, you don't acted like an elder, so its hard to treat you as one. Its never too late to learn regardless of you're age and I hope you've learned something here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Good. You're starting to discuss the issues, instead of blithely claiming that the subject is notable. What you describe is how we start in determining whether an article passes WP:GNG. The problem is that you haven't provided Fortune Magazine, Business Insider and WEIRD; and the weak sources actually in the article are nothing more than thinly disguised reprints of press releases from PAX. The TechCrunch piece reads exactly like a press-release and is completely uncritical of the subject. The Advertising Age article gives the game away: "The company earlier this month broke a campaign for the new product ..." They did nothing more than pick up on PAX's ad campaign to launch Juul. The engadget op-ed looks more like a genuine piece of reporting, but slips up by showing exactly the same graph as TechCrunch. The Verge makes a decent attempt at journalism by actually interviewing Pax's director of communications, but that's just one semi-decent source among a collection of dross. I'm sure that the definition of a WP:reliable source hasn't escaped you: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." So tell me, where do I find evidence of the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy of: (1) TechCrunch; (2) Advertising Age; (3) engadget? Ignoring all your blether about NPOV (which has no bearing on notability), the next point can be found in the last bullet point of WP:GNG: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article" So there's my contention: the content at Juul (electronic cigarette) is not only thin, but is already partly duplicated at PAX Labs. There is neither enough content or reliable sourcing to make a separate article a better option than merging Juul into PAX labs.

Now, after the lesson, I'll address your other points. You're the one who started commenting on editors, instead of content, with your "I'm always sadden to see lack of research before coming to make a decision." A "lack of research"? Where do you get off casting aspersions on your fellow editors? I don't se any sign of you offering them apologies for your ad hominem attack. How dare you suggest that others are not here to build an encyclopedia, when you've demonstrated that your only debating tactic is to attack other editors? My attitude toward you is no more than a pale reflection of your appalling attitude to the other editors discussing here. So you can forget trying to patronise me any further. Here's my final tip for you: when you ping an editor, you have to sign that edit, otherwise there's no notification. Now there's something else you've learned today. --RexxS (talk) 02:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hum. The more I look at this the greater my concerns. You mention "New York Legal Examiner" as a major source. The content is own by Claris Marketing per at the bottom.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

• Take it to AfD and I'll show you you're lack of research I'm not going to make the Cunard style post here. It is a lot of work I'll save it for the AfD which will be opened if this is ever merged. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 03:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James, and keeping an eye on this--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Here are the source everyone is looking for Business Insider, Fortune, Chicago Tribune, and another business insider, are you telling me these sources don't cut the muster? It proves the devices is notable enough for standalone coverage. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Those are more about the company[7] so yes still not seeing enough to justify a seperate article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: there are tons more sources Wired, Engadget, and Co.Design. Each of these sources gives the subject significant coverage. There is also trivial mentions in sources regarding e-cig health Fortune. Those three sources are about the cigarette not the company. This is multiple reliable third party sources, which is why AfD is preferred here so the information in the sources can be listed. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the page is an advertisement, especially without any critical content. We don't need another stub for another brand from the same company. QuackGuru (talk) 17:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge or unmerge

I am reopening the merge discussion because JUUL was spun out of Pax Labs in 2017. Should Juul be unmerged or should it remain in the Pax Labs article? QuackGuru (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Support merge

• Support. Agree with RexxS Cloudjpk (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. There is not enough reliable sources for a separate article. The result would be to delete the JUUL content if not kept on this page. It is a worse idea to delete the JUUL content. It would not survive an AFD nomination. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose merge

(Invited by the bot) My knowledge here is superficial, but if it's a separate company and it appears large / prominent, I think that wp:notability is highly likely. Also, covering two different companies in one article seems like a bad idea. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Reopened discussion

I'm not sure if a stand alone article is notable. QuackGuru (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Juul a subsidiary of PAX or an independent company?StarHOG (talk) 15:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

See "Earlier this year, Juul Labs quietly spun out of vaping company Pax Labs and quickly catapulted up the charts to become the top e-cigarette producer on the market. Now, the San Francisco-based company is raising $150 million in its first financing as an independent company."[8] QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Outside comment: The CNBC article seems to focus, after the finance, on the execudrama of Pax vs Juul. If they are still that inseparable in the industry-savvy-media's eye, and their individual work isn't so different or separable as to make more than a stub or independent material each, you're better off with just a single article (title PAX Labs due to first-adopter and name both in lede sentence). Note of course if a corporate scandal were to impact either of the companies it would be proper to separate the pages. SamuelRiv (talk) 04:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) Oppose merge - JUUL is a standalone company (we have a reference), and it survives WP:NOTE - [9] [10] [11] ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 05:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

There is currently not enough content for two separate articles. About half of the references in the article are about JUUL. There is potential for both articles to be deleted if they were split. QuackGuru (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC withdrawn at this time. Not enough people commented after reopening the discussion. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've edited the article again

Since my last editing of this article, among other things reducing what I consider ridiculously lengthy quotation of statements by company spokesmen that add no factual information, and naming references in an easy to remember and type manner, were reverted and a caution about discretionary sanctions slapped on my talk page, I hereby bring your attention to the fact I have again edited the article adding a new reference with an easy to remember and type name and integrating material previously presented in a hurky-jerky fashion. If I have thereby sinned against the prevailing orthodoxy in articles on the topic of e-cigarettes and their manufacturers, here is a waving flag so that my errors may be stamped out more rapidly. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I spotted an issue. Do you think all three sources verify the same claim? QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The Business Examiner/SF Chronicle ref says both that the mix with salts is patented and that the company claims it produces something more like leaf tobacco (I paraphrased as "emulates"). The other source cited there (TechCrunch?) says the company says the addition of the salts makes it more like smoking leaf tobacco than other e-cigarettes. And we had an additional sentence saying they have received a US patent for the salts mix, which is labored prose. So I rolled the "patented" into the same sentence and used "emulated" to shorten and to avoid overly close paraphrase. We are allowed to combine sentences, especially if one citation covers two statements. The article is painfully "He says ..." "They say ..." and choppy. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Then you would have no problem verifying "On June 1, 2015,...". Right? It also decreases readable by adding additional sources. Combining different sources to come to a conclusion not found in both sources can be confusing. The current source used to verify the claim says "...found in leaf tobacco...". Stating it "emulates" is a very different claim. Also stating it is "nicotine with salts" is misleading. It is not nicotine with other salts. It is nicotine salts that are found in tobacco leaves. They have a formula to make the nicotine salt that was patented in 2015. QuackGuru (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Split JUUL

Re-opening the discussion about splitting the article to give JUUL its own article. JUUL was spun off into its own company (JUUL Labs, Inc.) in 2017. JUUL is definitely notable on its own, as it accounts for half of the e-cigarette market in the United States, is a major cultural phenomenon among young adults and students, and has attracted regulatory attention from the FDA and others. Some of the content concerning JUUL pre-2017 could be left in this article, so both articles would be sufficiently large. Chumash11 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

After a long discussion there was a merge. I recommend starting a RfC to undo the merge. QuackGuru (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Chumash11: @QuackGuru: I think given the new circumstances a bold split is warranted, its not the same company anymore. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 04:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

A lot of the same players from Pax Labs are now at JUUL. The products are generally the same. After they are sold to one of the Big Tobacco companies then we can talk about a split or a RfC can be opened. We can't ignore the others who participated in the previous discussions. QuackGuru (talk) 05:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've bold split there doesn't seem to be any controversy here if anyone who participated in the prior discussion disagree's in light for the new circumstances I can open an AfD or RfC for split, I find AfD to be a quicker method. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 11:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ploom?

so who owns the Ploom site & the product it produces? I see their product is not for sale in the US but has the Ploom logo I see on my OG Pax. 2600:1700:7642:1730:DDF2:534C:6B5E:596B (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)