Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (3rd nomination)


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  04:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

List of street names of drugs
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Recreation of deleted page, see previous deletion discussion Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (2nd nomination). The article is not maintainable with regards to No original research, Verifiability, and Notability, in addition to being a vandalism magnet. For good reasons, Wikipedia is not a slang guide, please see Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We already have to waste our time to constantly remove slang names from the respective articles. Most of these slang names are restricted to a small circle, are very short lived, and are highly ambiguous (as seen in the current list). There are very few established street names, such as ecstasy for MDMA or angel dust for phencyclidine, but these are already mentioned in the respective articles and redirects are in place. Cacycle (talk) 03:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC) 1. The list was created just for the sake of having such a list
 * Transwiki to Wiktionary. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - recreation of previously deleted content. JulesH (talk) 08:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion for recreation doesn't hold. None of the previously deleted versions bear a resemblence to the current version. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LC items 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 11. Stifle (talk) 16:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the LC items Stifle invoked:
 * There's no evidence for this.

3. The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information
 * It's discriminate. If we follow Wikipedia policy only widely documented streetnames are verifiable and notable enough for inclusion. Any concerns about membership are addressed by existing rules.

4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
 * If these names were included in the articles about the drugs there'd be no issue, so the underlying concept isn't non-notable. Verifiability of current listings is a valid concerns.

6. The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable
 * Maybe for some drugs the number of suitable entries is ridiculously large, but we can't know before we scrapped the ones that don't meet the rules first.

8.The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia.
 * We have a lot of entries that are not expected in a regular encyclopedia. I see it as a navigational entry.

10.Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
 * Not if we only allow referenced entries.

11.The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date.
 * No evidence yet.

Only items 4 and 6 make a valid case. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete list of neologisms Mrathel (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a useful list. Some of the slang terms are notable and widely known, even for me, a Russian speaker. "Magnet for vandals" and "previously deleted" are not valid arguments for deletion.Biophys (talk) 02:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Since this is primarily about words, perhaps moving it to wiktionary is the best solution. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment If you read WP:Dicdef, it clearly states that wikipedia is not the place for "slang or idiom guides". While this list might be verifiable, it is very clear that its intention is to provide a guide for common slang regarding drugs, which is a great example of WP:NOT Mrathel (talk) 14:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete if there was verifiable reliable sourcing about how each drug got its name with some explanation of that process, then it could survive, but as an unverifiable list it cannot. If there were sources, it may be mergeable into Drug subculture, but as it is, it isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources for street names of drugs. Understanding Street Drugs is one. The Hippie Dictionary is another. There are plenty more. "Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom usage guide" is meant to prohibit prescriptive usage guides, not descriptive lists of slang terms of a specific type like this one. DHowell (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--The potential for vandalism is not a valid reason for deletion. I learned several terms that I didn't know. That is the purpose of this enciclopedia; the sum of all knowledge. The main problem is lack of reference and DHoweel has provided different reliable references that can be use to sourced the article. --J.Mundo (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2009 (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.