Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Granddaddy Purple (GDP)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  10:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Granddaddy Purple (GDP)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There seems to be an attempt by the Cannabis lobby to create as many strain articles as possible. It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia. We are not leafly nor erowid. If a strain is notable, such as Kush, which carries infinite sourcing ranging from the press to hollywood films, then having an article is advisable. But what about the dozens of non-notable strains such as this? There is no independent nor reliable coverage about them. This needs to stop and a few articles will have to be deleted as well, and the creators warned. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your views on Cannabis, your reason for removing an article is wrong. I am quoting from your discussion above "It strikes me as inappropriate for Wikipedia." This excerpt is purely personal opinion and not anywhere grounds for deletion. Each individual strain of Marijuana has unique medical benefits and side-effects. This makes it an ideal candidate for a series of Wikipedia articles. Weather you agree with Cannabis or not, the scientific facts are undenyable. I will continue to create articles on ALL different strains of marijuana regardless of the Anti-Marijuana Lobby. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You are making this personal. I've stated the strain does not pass our general notability guideline. Others do. Most don't. You need to improve your reading comprehension. Best, FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  01:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Let's try to not get sidetracked here and just look at whether this particular strain meets WP:GNG. It seems to me that this is a bona fide reliable source -- so that would be one. The Cannabist, a newsite published by the Denver Post, has this review. And I do see lots of minor mentions in other results. Rather than declaring war on all cannabis strain articles the nominator states in his nomination that major strains such as Kush are clearly notable. Even as a cannabis enthusiast I think we're at least one really good reliable source for a keep !vote, as my personal rule of thumb for "multiple" articles is at least three. Anyone got one? I don't believe a listing in the Leafily online guide would count. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to look for sources. You provided a decent one (Cannabist). What's the other one? Three is our recommended minimum at AfC. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's all just too minor., your search uncovered some fun links, like "Dave Grohl and Animal have an epic drum-off on The Muppets" and "David Bowie's Wife Iman Shares New Message for Fans 1-Month After Singer's Death"--because some jackass was spamming in the comments. Anyway, too minor; not notable. That "review" (more an ego document) in The Cannabist is just not enough. BTW, note also Articles for deletion/Blackjack (cannabis). Drmies (talk) 20:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. We need to be careful when jumping to conclusions based on web results. Reliable references are needed, not comments or forum posts. That is the whole problem with these articles. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  01:06, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep GDP is a notable strain of weed, I think with a little work this article could survive. Reviews/articles/mentions in sources: The Denver Post, Dope Magazine, High Times, The Marijuana Times, Highsnobiety, East Bay Express, Mic, Complex. The creator of this strain, Ken Estes, appears to have achieved some notability on his own as well and his backstory of how/why he created this strain could be included, HighBeam produced these results for Estes: ...as well as the world-famous High Times Cannabis Cup winning plant genetics by Ken Estes...Grand Daddy Purp is well known for its pain relief qualities having been reported especially effective for arthritis and limb disabilities, while allowing patients to maintain focus and clarity., Associated Press, Rocky Mountain News, The Boston Globe. And apparently (not so notable), Estes started a record label named after this strain: Grandaddy Purp Music, named after a strain of marijuana he created, the album is appropriately titled Medicine Man, All HipHop, Podcast interview with Estes on Cannabis Radio.-- Isaidnoway (talk)  19:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)



 References
 * Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Some source examples are listed below. I consider Leafly to be a reliable source in terms of its editorial coverage of strains. However, the user review aspects of their content does not count toward establishing notability. North America1000 21:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * High Times
 * The Denver Post
 * The Cannabible 3. Potter/TenSpeed/Harmony.
 * Dope Magazine
 * Leafly
 * Green: A Field Guide to Marijuana. Chronicle Books.
 * Keep there are enough reliable sources here to show that this strain beyond all doubt meets GNG. For example,, and .  Omni Flames  ( talk ) 08:21, 24 June 2016 (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.