Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chillum (pipe)


 * 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. John254 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Chillum (pipe)
This isn't a notable or verifiable type of cannabis pipe and thus I ask that the article be removed. Delete. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Though an WP:OSE reasoning, we have an article on other pipes, such as Steamroller (pipe). The page in question has been around for almost three years. There is a reference to what it is, and that much is verifiable (as opposed to a "someone claimed this exists" article). The article's content is sufficient so as to demonstrate notability. Is it a very notable subject? No. Is it notable "enough"? Yes. Therefore, at bare minimum combine into a Cannabis pipes article, but I believe that WP:Notability and WP:Verifiability are minimally met and could be met through additional referencing. Therefore, should be a Keep. VigilancePrime (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename Chillum. Clearly verifiable, the content would have to be merged into Smoking pipe as it is essential that this notable subject is covered. Merely because its use is relatively rare outside India does not indicate lack of notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Nor do the 6 refs the article now contains. Thanks, SqueakBox 06:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What material in this article did you find verifiable? That is the primary basis for deletion here.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well lets start with the first sentence. Why would this article not be verifiable. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your argument is at fault, but I will entertain it anyhow. If only the first sentence is verifiable then it is apparent that an article cannot be sustained and should in fact be deleted.  Thank you for making my point.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No its not. Don't just glibly tell me my argument is at fault merely because you disagree, I didn't get beyond the first sentence in answering your question so don't assume I am saying only the first sentence is verifiable as that would be putting words into my mouth. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It is the obligation of one seeking to add or keep content to provide sources and references. However, that argument is somewhat beside the point, since it isn't whether the article is good as it is, but whether or not it should be kept & improved that would most directly bear on this deletion discussion.  --SSBohio 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  23:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously verified by the first source. Article has not been previously tagged and AfD is not cleanup.  Nom's attitude is also not appreciated.Torc2 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no incivility in the above. And no, what is actually obvious from the first source is that it only supports 1 sentence of content, as already pointed out.  Where has this subject been documented in depth by multiple published works from reliable and independent sources, to the extent that a full article can be made?  Please cite sources to demonstrate that the subject satisfies the Primary Notability Criterion. Uncle G (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You see no incivility? "Thank you for making my point." "Don't just glibly tell me my argument is at fault merely because you disagree." "Thank you, again."  You don't see Coccyx Bloccyx's last comment as being exceptionally condescending?  And regardless of whether the source only supports the first sentence, it makes clear that the existence of the pipe meets WP:V and probably WP:N.  Yes, more sources are needed; no, there is not enough cause to delete. Torc2 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that prior to this discussion he redirected the article (then at Chillum) to Chillum, Maryland three times without discussion. He removed my comment about it from his talk page and told me that if I did not source it (I have no history of editing this article, I just noticed that he had redirected it) he would post it at AfD (which I had directed him to do in my deleted comment). He has since moved it to Chillum (pipe) without any attempt at gathering consensus, a move I believe to be without basis. I'm not going to contest that, though, because the information is still available, and I really don't want to get into an argument with an editor with such behavior. Atropos (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep & improve - This article's topic meets the basic standards of notability and verifiability, even if lacking in other areas. It clearly needs more citations, but the topic itself appears to meet the standard for inclusion.  Stubbify at the extreme, but the subject should be covered here.  If no sources arise, then the article can always be merged into smoking pipe.  Our goal needs to be to make bad articles better, maybe even the gold standard, not merely to delete whatever doesn't measure up at this moment. --SSBohio 01:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep i don't see why this would be deleted. It's verifiable by the source, it's obviously notable. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep this topic is clearly notable. Atropos (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Improvement may be needed per SSBohio, but what articles cannot be improved? &mdash;Whig (talk) 05:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known in South Asia. utcursch | talk 15:09, 13 January 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.