Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis culture


 * 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.  Maxim (talk)  19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannabis culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article has problems with sourcing, e.g. two of its sources are wikis. Built on these poor sources is an OR synthesis which seems to be the development of a stereotype. Alksub 20:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything relevant in this article is (or at least should be) covered in Marijuana. In addition, this page suffers from lack of verifiability, as well as a bad case of WP:SYNTH. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with Ten pound Hammer, this article is a spot for marijuana users to show off and glorify, which is not encyclopedic at all, any useful information can be found on much more creditable articles so there is no need for this POV article. CrazyRob926 01:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's hard to deny that there was a "cannabis culture", although mostly it's made up now of middle-aged men and women who can't remember most of it. It's got a start at sourcing, and it's not a candidate for merger back into the Marijuana article (and I doubt it came from there anyway).  Mandsford 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is the perfect candidate for merger! The music and cannabis section should be merged into Stoner Rock and psychedelic rock, the smoking with paper section should be merged into the wiki article Joint (cannabis), the "With a bong or pipe" section should be merged into Bong and Smoking pipe (non-tobacco), the information under shared smoking is unverifiable by creditable sources and is hardly encyclopedic. Plus basically all the information on this article can already be found on those other creditable articles, so there is no need for this article what so ever. CrazyRob926 02:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is a certain "cannibus culture", but it isn't wikipedia's place to be the first to identify it. AdamBiswanger1 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as it is notable and can be fixed. Bearian 23:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is the masturbation of a small group of people seeking to define a culture around an activity. There aren't articles about drinking culture because such a wide, diverse group of people consume alcohol. The same is true for marijuana. A wide and diverse subset of humans consume marijuana and just because some people have rituals surrounding its consumption does not make it a "culture". This article seems pointless to me: you can write the bong culture stuff in the bong article the pipe stuff in the pipe article, and the joint stuff in the joint article; there are articles on psychedelic and stoner rock already which do a better job of describing the phenomena; user stereotypes can go in the Cannabis (drug) article. If this article wants to remain, the burden is on its authors to site sources which point to the significance of its statements. I don't see this happening any time soon because I don't think that the statements are significant. I cut and pasted some of this argument from my previous posts on the talk page of this article. The Talking Sock talk contribs 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. This is a well known phenomenon.Biophys 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps a rewrite is in order, much more information could be added, but only with proper sourcing. I disagree that there is no culture, considering the ritualistic subtleties associated with marijuana smoking. The article simply needs additional accurate and verifiable information. Josh3580 03:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and improve.--Gloriamarie 12:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete No reliable sources after this long on AfD. And the whole thing looks un-encyclopaedic anyway. NBeale 22:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is original research and not verifiable.  I would consider changing my opinion with a substantial rewrite.  -- JamesTeterenko 04:11, 16 September 2007 (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.