Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug street names


 * 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} speedy delete as yet another re-creation of a deleted dictionary of slang. This is simply List of street names of drugs re-created, under a different title 3 days after its last deletion. The Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy applies. This article is nothing but a set of (stub) dictionary entries for slang words &mdash; not even good stubs in many cases, at that. There is no actual encyclopaedia article content, on the subject of drug street names, here at all. We had a consensus to get rid of this dictionary of slang words at Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (2nd nomination), and in different forms this dictionary has already been discussed several times before, including at Articles for deletion/Street name and at Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms 2. For a dictionary of such slang words, see Wiktionary, which is a dictionary. Wiktionary has had WikiSaurus entries and appendices dealing with these words for several years, now. It has wikt:Wikisaurus:marijuana and wikt:Appendix:Cannabis slang, for examples. Indeed, until this edit (some of which has yet to be reverted) cannabis (drug) used to link to them. Uncle G 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Drug street names

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list has not a single reference. I would love to go through and clean it up using Wikipedia standards for sourcing (and also notability)... but it would be empty. This is simply a harbor for neologisms. Notable slang terms, if there are any, should be (and are) included in the articles for the particular drugs they're referring to &mdash; "marijuana" at cannabis, "coke" at cocaine, etc. 98% of this is simply intoxicant-listcruft. Let me reiterate: there are no sources for anything on this page, either for notability or even simple common, widespread use. Delete. JDoorjam    JDiscourse 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nom is dead on here is appears. --Wildnox(talk) 04:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. WP:NEO and those that aren't subject to that are already mentioned in their corresponding articles(or they should be if not). Mitaphane talk 05:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, lists like this get e-mailed around the police community and then back out to the public, but who knows if any of them really see use. It's by definition almost impossible to verify. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not appropriate for here House of Scandal 09:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Article is, at this time, unverifiable through the use of reliable, third party sources. As an unsourced, indiscriminate list, I would support deletion. I would also support the inclusion of any major, externally verifiable terms into the article on the related drug. -- saberwyn 10:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, a classic example of a faxlore compilation. Too bad this is too long for WP:BJAODN; the revelation proposed here that "weasel feed" is a slang word for marijuana made me smile.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from nominator: I certainly wouldn't object to some of the more ridiculous ones being excerpted to BJAODN, like the very first entry for cannabis slang which defines "8th Row tickets at the Nuggets game" as "An Eighth of Dizzity Dank." JDoorjam    JDiscourse 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't a question of appropriateness, given WP:NOT. The article is clearly not up to par as far as verifiability, and it's unfortunate because it looks like a well put together list. → &ensp; J A R E D &ensp;(t)&ensp; 20:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Ok, so maybe this list isn't sourced right now. Here's three  ,.  If anybody wants to rewrite this article using these sources, or others, they certainly can, and probably should. So the only question is whether or not this kind of information should be collated on Wikipedia.  (The nomination certainly supports including the information in articles on the drugs themselves, so the inclusion of the information is not immediately at issue).  So far as I can see, I don't see why not, none of the opinions here have expressed any kind of argument addressing that issue.  The names themselves are important enough for law enforcement to care about, and while articles shouldn't use slang, that's not the same as saying we shouldn't have articles on slang.  Somebody get back to me if you can address that issue, and not the unimportant one about sources.  That, as the links I provided show, is easily addressed.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this list certainly seems to qualify as. Your sources actually strengthen this point: the second source, for instance, lists 536 different slang terms for marijuana alone.  Your third source is equally long-winded; your first mercifully only lists a few examples for each.  But this demonstrates that even "official" lists such as these are not at all definitive, unless you're suggesting we include everything on their list simply because it's there?  Those other sites allow themselves the latitude to randomly compile information; we do not.  If individuals are interested in the slang names for particular drugs, they're able to look those up and find them in their respective articles.  Better yet, they can go peruse urbandictionary.com, a project dedicated to documenting exactly this sort of information.  If there were a source stating the importance to police of being up on drug slang, that information would be relevant at slang.  But neologisms huddling together for warmth as they do here, or being put on a context-less list by drug agencies, do not make them Wikipedia material. JDoorjam     JDiscourse 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your nomination(and several of the further opinions expressed) complained about sources, I demonstrated that it's not a real issue, as there are numerous sources available. It took me literally seconds to find these. Thus it would be better to not even try to argue that, as it's rather easy to show why it's meaningless claim. If you want sources, they exist. Perhaps you could strike that reason from your nomination? That might concentrate matters on more relevant reasons to delete. WP:NOT is probably a better argument in this case, and I suggest seeing if Wikitionary has it already. You aren't objecting to the information itself after all, as you have supported putting these slang terms on the individual drug articles.   I think a collation is helpful myself, but I don't care if it's here or there.  FrozenPurpleCube 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: While I would agree that the article does not necessarily meet Wikipedia standards per se, I do think that it compiles an interesting amount of information, not necessarily inaccurate. Is that not what Wikipedia was meant to be? And yes, they're neologisms but I think they're very important socially. If it's not here, it won't be anywhere. Just my two cents. --Rockstar915 00:07, 27 January 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.