Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reefer rock


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reefer rock

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced entry jammed packed with rumours and speculation. The entry is about a location, but says outright that it won't tell you where it is. That's followed by speculation about decriminalizing marijuana in Rhode Island. Google searches turn up nothing. Prod & prod2 declined. Hairhorn (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC) What if it is a primary source-anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.224.17 (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No notability, could even be a hoax. Unable to find anything to allow it to pass just about anything! Paste  Let’s have a chat. 17:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If it's not a hoax, it's a definite waste of space for WP. It's about as close to notable as Earth is to a quasar. Angryapathy (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly silly. Not notable even if everything said in the article was true, and well sourced. Borock (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. If anyone wants to know what Articles for deletion was like in 2005, check out this article. We used to see articles like this all the time: Truly spread by only word of mouth, Reefer Rock is a rumor mere going around. Still its existence is not proven. The article presents the topic as being so mysterious and unknown that it is unverifiable, which means that Wikipedia can't have an article about it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with all possible speed, patent nonsense.Vulcan&#39;s Forge (talk) 04:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, this article is not patent nonsense according to Wikipedia's definition. It is meaningful in that it can be reasonably understood; the article is about a rock on Aquidneck Island which is allegedly used by some people as a location to smoke marijuana. However, the article is completely unsourced and consequently unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If not hoax, it lacks WP:RS per original Prod rational placed on article at creation review. Calmer   Waters  21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's called original research, it would be even it if weren't anonymous. Being "primary source anonymous" would also make it unverifiable. So you're out of luck both ways. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be stubborn, but i don't understand. Define verifiable. Technically anything you see or read online can be fake. You techically don't have "proof" that it happened unless you yourself are a primary witness of said event. Is it verifiable if multiple people testify to it?
 * You can find the answers in the links I gave you above. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 5 December 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.