Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis in the United Kingdom


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator and one editor arguing for userfication. The consensus here is that any OR issues can be fixed through the normal editing process. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis in the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An article rife with original research that has been tagged as unreferenced since November 2009. The content looks like it is a personal essay from multiple editors. The article's name is worth of an article, but the contents of this article need nuking from orbit. The Pink Oboe (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. If the article should exist, but its current content isn't up to standard, let's work to fix it. I posted four reliable sources on the talk page as a starting point. Sancho 00:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a notable topic with sufficient verifiable references. Note that an AfD should not be used for an article on a notable topic that simply needs some editing. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I imagine, percentage-wise there are very few editors in the UK  who are knowledgeable enough to expand this, so we need to give them  time. --Aspro (talk) 10:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dodgy .. the problem with this article is that it needs to be balanced with "Cannabis in France", "Cannabis in USA" etc. to be balanced... should it not be a sub-section of Cannabis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: We already have "Cannabis in USA" see: Category:Cannabis by country. Also, there seems to be too many cultural and legal differences, to neatly put these things  in one article. --Aspro (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Comment:" The lack of other articles that would be suitable for wikipedia isn't something that affects a deletion discussion. Maybe there just haven't been interested editors to create those articles like Cannabis in France, etc. Sancho 21:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As it stands, Redirect to Legality of cannabis. Most of this article is unsourced and too dubious without proper referencing. The few bits of definite factual information are already included in this article. But by all means rescue/recreate if this information is properly sourced.
 * Comment:Redirecting to a more restricted topic (i.e., just the legal aspects) is the last thing it needs now. Like the Cannabis in Australia article, it would be easier to expand if we included all aspects of cannabis use in this article, including industrial hemp, medical uses, as well as the legal position. I can then transfer some of the information I placed on List of British politicians who admit to cannabis use to it (once the threat of deletion has been removed and I, or someone else gets the time to look up the refs again to get more info). If the article then becomes too big, we can divide it up like the US articles covering different aspect.  But it all comes down in the UK articles to the time available from a more limited number of editors.--Aspro (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. There has now been substantial change since the article was put up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can now see enough in this article for a keep, although the usage section still needs serious attention to deal with the OR issues. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We could be bold and simply delete any contentious material. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * userify if it's such a problem. then the creator can reinstate it into wikipedia's database when it's ready. qö₮$@37 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely agree with the idea that if the article should exist, but its current content isn't up to standard, we should work to fix it, not just delete it. • triswithers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.184.88 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2010 (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.