Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kush (herb)


 * 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 no consensus. Hopefully Noah will be able to improve the article and avoid a quick return trip here.-- Kubigula (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Kush (herb)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not a notable or reliably verifiable subset or strain of cannabis and thus I propose that the article be removed. Sites like as "www.4cannabis.com" do not fall under (or anywhere near) the umbrella of a reliable source. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: notable and referenced form of cannabis. . I'll incorporate the references if the article is kept. &mdash;Noah 05:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * However, the article title needs to change to something like Kush (cannabis). &mdash;Noah 05:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice. The news archive cited above has some trivial mentions, but I could not locate any scholarly sources indicating that this is a legitimate "strain" of cannabis.  If this can be corrected ala WP:HEY please leave me a note on my talk page and I will revise my motion.  (jarbarf) (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- there are sources that indicate that this is a notable strain of cannabis, as there are numerous sources on google books/scholar that mention Kush specifically. Rigby27   Talk  01:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - I have tried to reliably source this but failed. Yes, there are references to 'Kush' as one of the numerous terms for cannabis. However, none of the sources identified by Noah actually support the content of the page. There were two references in the page. One was purely a sales link that I have removed. The other has some content but is hardly reliable. The existence of the term is not sufficient for a page; we need reliable content. My view is that it should be deleted as failing the key policy WP:V. TerriersFan (talk) 18:26, 4 March 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.