Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blowtube


 * 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 delete. Recreated as redirect to Blowgun. Sandstein (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Blowtube

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism / dictdef. Google returns a smattering of hits, but no significant coverage from reliable third party sources. Action Jackson IV (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Keep, please. Blowtube is midwest vernacular. This entry will eventually be part of a larger collection of subculture terminology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octodomus (talk • contribs) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Neologism, and nothing more than a bit of OR and hoax junk. Jmlk  1  7  05:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like a hoax. It's also non-notable.-- RyRy5 ( talk ) 05:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced neologism at best, juvenile clowning around at worst. --Stormie (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I Googled "blow tube marijuana" as well as "blowtube marijuana". The first query came up with hits on such reliable sources as High Times and The Ithacan. It seems to be more in-culture jargon than a neologism. The current stub is indeed not much more than a dictionary definition, but I can see potential for a more detailed article here. Ashanda (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, could be hoax, could be a non-notable and little used slang term, either way not encyclopedic. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources --Pustefix (talk) 18:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, please examine the article- it has been referenced to a reliable source since yesterday. Ashanda (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment There needs to be a disambiguation page, because the word is also a synonym for a blowgun, and its the name of the tube used for blowing glass. --Blechnic (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - purported source omits the word "blowtube." Thus it cannot be used to support an article for this neologism. After this AfD is finished, any article for any purported meanings of the term must also be similarly demonstrated by citations from reliable sources covering the term. B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't neologisms newly invented words? It sounds like participants in this discussion are not consulting any sources for their claim that this article is a neologism, because this word is in Webster's 1913 dictionary.  I guess there is no more a requirement to have valid resources for deleting as there is to have valid resources for creating.  It makes the whole enterprise more of a game than a serious endeavour.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The word as presented in the article is a neologism as it was recently coined in the context of marijuana use. I agree that the word as used in glass blowing is on much firmer ground, but we must deal with the article in hand first (I'd hestitate to recommend a complete rewrite with a different focus because some would believe it to be disruptive of the AfD). I'd recommend waiting until this is completed if you were thinking about writing about glass blowing here; as far as the synonym of "blow pipe", most likely a tag on top of the "blow tube" article - old or new - would do the job. B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no AfD law against completely rewriting an article. Oftentimes it seems the nominations are for clearly notable topics, but poorly written articles that someone has the energy to argue for deletion but no will or ability to clean up the article.  I see AfD articles get cleaned up all of the time by responsible editors.  I see crappy articles get kept with no one bothering to edit them.  But so much wheel spinning devoted to deleting the article.  I suspect there's a barnstar for "most deleted articles" or something, the way this is run.
 * It is much faster and easier to say "delete" than it is to rewrite, copyedit or source an article. Building is always easier than destroying, and AfD isn't exactly a process built upon rules that are followed.  --Blechnic (talk) 05:43, 26 April 2008 (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.