Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marijuana (word)


 * 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, actually slightly leaning keep, but kept by default anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Marijuana (word)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Content is suitable for a dictionary entry, but not for an encyclopedia article Urszag (talk) 10:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete no reason this info shouldn't be in Cannabis (drug) under alternate terms; there's just not enough substance for the etymology to support its own article like cannabis —Мандичка YO 😜 11:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cannabis (drug), no reason the etymology of alternate terms can't be included in that article. Winner 42 Talk to me!  15:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge merge to Cannabis, no reason this should stand on its own when its a small part that can be added to Cannabis page. Ozzyland 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzyland (talk • contribs)
 * Merge as above: per WP:NOTDICT, a Wikipedia article is about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing" not about a word. Alternative names of the drug extracted from Cannabis sativa belong in the article cannabis (drug). Colapeninsula (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cannabis (drug), which will enhance it. North America1000 01:13, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep no merge The article needs work but it is a good enough start and the concept is notable. Perhaps it could be renamed to "Marijuana (etymology)", or perhaps "Names for cannabis" or "Etymology of terms for cannabis". Here are some additional sources addressing the notability of the discussion of the term itself.
 * The reason why I oppose a merge is because there is a lot of content here and if it is added to the cannabis article, then it will be judged as WP:UNDUE and deleted. A suggestion to WP:MERGE should be with intent to actually incorporate the content, not to trim it to a note and delete the rest. There are a lot of sources here, and the term "marijuana" itself disregarding all other terms for the same drug has a history which has been examined.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why I oppose a merge is because there is a lot of content here and if it is added to the cannabis article, then it will be judged as WP:UNDUE and deleted. A suggestion to WP:MERGE should be with intent to actually incorporate the content, not to trim it to a note and delete the rest. There are a lot of sources here, and the term "marijuana" itself disregarding all other terms for the same drug has a history which has been examined.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why I oppose a merge is because there is a lot of content here and if it is added to the cannabis article, then it will be judged as WP:UNDUE and deleted. A suggestion to WP:MERGE should be with intent to actually incorporate the content, not to trim it to a note and delete the rest. There are a lot of sources here, and the term "marijuana" itself disregarding all other terms for the same drug has a history which has been examined.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason why I oppose a merge is because there is a lot of content here and if it is added to the cannabis article, then it will be judged as WP:UNDUE and deleted. A suggestion to WP:MERGE should be with intent to actually incorporate the content, not to trim it to a note and delete the rest. There are a lot of sources here, and the term "marijuana" itself disregarding all other terms for the same drug has a history which has been examined.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:19, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per Blue Rasberry. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Blue Rasberry - Enough sources to warrant an article which including BRs sources passes GNG. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep WP has quite a few articles on the history and use of controversial words. (Mostly ones I don't use so I will not give examples.) It seems to be a notable topic, encyclpedia-wise.Borock (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cannabis (drug). A summary of the different terms there would seem the best solution. --Michig (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Blue Rasberry sums it up pretty well. &mdash;  Yash! (Y) 21:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cannabis (drug) Shad Innet (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (see arguments above)
 * Keep - I'm not very keen on etymology or "(word)" articles, generally preferring that an encyclopaedia's articles focus on actual topics rather than on words about them. However, there are over 100 articles on Cannabis, marking it out as a major topic. The natural place for an etymology, Cannabis (drug), would suit the etymology of the word Cannabis (related to hanap, hemp...) rather than the word Marijuana: an etymology of that term in that article would indeed probably seem undue to editors, and it would likely be cut down drastically, if not deleted. And that leaves no other home for the well-attested etymology in the current article. Keep is therefore the correct outcome. I note in passing that there are in fact rather few arguments given above for a merge, and I agree with Blueraspberry that the likely collapse-to-note that would result from a merge would be an undesirable and unfortunate result. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The merger suggestions are reasonable, but ultimately I think Blue Raspberry and Chiswick Chap make a stronger case for the separate article being a better vehicle for the presentation of this content, which goes beyond a simple etymology. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2015 (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.