Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of street names of drugs (5th 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   delete. Concerns about the verifiability of this article have been discussed to varying degrees in the previous four AfD's, but it appears that the perception has changed since the last AfD in 2009, and there is significant agreement in this discussion that the article is neither verifiable nor encyclopedic. &mdash;SW&mdash; spill the beans 20:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:NOT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:WHIM,  WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY  etc. (this actually falls under nearly all of the listings on WP:NOT). Inherently non-encyclopedic exhaustive listing of names (most that no one's ever heard of, many that don't make any sense, exhaustive listing of breeds and subspecies of cannabis) for various illicit drugs, most probably WP:OR based on attempted Googlings of a few random ones that I'd never heard of. Even if it was encyclopedic (which, by definition, it can not be, according to the subpolicies cited above), it would be unusable due to the uber-thesaurus-dictionary glut, let alone lack of sources. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 10:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 26.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  10:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A couple Keep closes, a Merge close, and a No Consensus close in the previous four times this has been haggled over. This is a list, not an article, which means it needs to be focused, limited, and functional — which this seems to be. The footnotes are archaic, it would be nice if a published book or three listing "street names" could be mustered and mined so that we never have to see this topic at AfD again... Still, "street names" are referenced in government sources and this particular list is no more "original research" than any one of thousands of others at WP. The topic is, ultimately, encyclopedic as a LIST — whereas an ARTICLE about any one of these names would be objectionable on NOTURBANDICTIONARY grounds. My opinion, yours may vary. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that if the article is kept - in the previous debates, the "keep" rationale has been shaky - it be substantially stubbed and reduced to those slang terms which have wide currency or can be attributed as being used somewhere (as many of the names for grass are actually breeds of grass, etc.; the names for the long-banned Placidyl are outright incorrect, as most of them were red, etc.) - essentially as a central repository for those names, with maybe a few extras, that are already listed in the articles of a given drug (which tend to have the common slang, e.g. for cannabis, "grass, pot, marijuana, marihuana, honey oil, hash, keef, weed, hydro, sensimilla, bud, herb, ganja", not a list that can only be navigated by CTRL+F). Why not also change scope to "Street drug slang" or something similar, and add all of the various terms for smoking and shooting up? According to a keep rationale given my talk page based on the "usefulness" of this information, such would be immensely increased by a recording of the slang surrounding illicit drugs (and those licit drugs which are abused, such as amphetamines, opiates and opioids, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, etc.). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 00:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that nothing in WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE relates in any way to this topic. It is not in any way a summary-only description of a fictional work, a collection of lyrics, nor any statistics whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The things covered by WP:IINFO include, but are not limited to, the things explicitly listed there. Jorgath's !vote is 100% valid. Reyk  YO!  02:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply - Actually, one thing does: the section title. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The specific examples are only relevant as examples, since WP:COMMONSENSE applied to the section title suggests that any indiscriminate collection of information should not be included without good reason. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep no problem articulated which cannot be solved through regular editing. More specific sourcing would be helpful, of course. Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * you have failed to provide any specific sourcing, which is one main reason people are arguing delete. LibStar (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The claim that this material is not encyclopedic is false. See The A-Z Encyclopedia of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Encyclopedia of Psychopharmacology, Encyclopedia of Drugs and Alcohol, &c. Warden (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * False reasoning. We have articles like that here - cannabis (drug), diacetylmorphine, psilocybin, methamphetamine, etc., which, notably, contain the most pertinent and valuable slang terms - the comparison is false, as no source gives such a ridiculously exhaustive list of every name any man has ever applied to a random assortment of common and uncommon drugs when stoned. "Psychopharmacology" is about the effects of the drugs and technical information, such as receptor binding, dissociation constants, ant/agonism, dosages, t1/2 and other kinetics, etc.; I'm guessing "A-Z" is about addictionology, and "EDA" is probably about both, like the PDR for street drugs. St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 17:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This article, or more correctly list, is not referenced significantly. Of the two refs quoted one is only available to health professionals and the other does not contain data relating to the illegal substances listed. As a health professional myself I am aware of a number of the drug names listed, but only a minority of them. The majority, in the absence of references, are originasl research and hence inadmissable.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete- This list is untenable. Most of the content is dubious and unsourced. Its accuracy has been specifically challenged. And, since all attempts to find sources has failed, per WP:BURDEN it ought to be removed. That won't leave enough content behind to stand on its own two feet. Reyk  YO!  02:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOT and WP:OR, there is insufficient sourcing. only Marijuana seems reasonably referenced. LibStar (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * delete wikipedia is not a thesaurus and not a collection of jargon. highly-known street names for individual drugs can be found on their individual pages, but there is no need for a massive list like this, esp because it will be difficult to verify sources.--Karl.brown (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to 'List of slang for recreational drugs' --Pereant antiburchius (talk) 09:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But when phrased in that way, it is by definition in contravention of a (core?) policy, WP:NOT and WP:WHIM (a major objection to the article in the first place), so I ask thee to reconsider. This article is complete unencyclopedic as is, and your proposed change does one thing very well: it brings to the forefront the unencyclopedic nature of this list. There are few pages here that are such that they do not belong and can not be improved: this is one of them (along with copious references to minor biographies that I CSD/PROD/AFD as soon as I meet them). St John Chrysostom ΔόξατωΘεώ 12:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and others. The articles on each individual drug should and—largely—do contain the most common slang names for each drug. Dumping them all here is pointless and completely untenable, in terms of upholding verifiability. This list should be a controlled substance itself for its monstrously mind-melting mediocrity. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a clear case of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and also because this is a clear vandal- and cruft-magnet that will attract drive-by editing to add "something I heard something called by". - The Bushranger One ping only 05:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is mostly dictionary-type content. Even to the extent it is verifiable, it's of questionable usefulness without information when or where these names were in use (it's not even stated in which country they were used).  Sandstein   06:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This list is indiscriminately broad.  Eluchil404 (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (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.