Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spliff politics (2 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   no consensus. Black Kite 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Spliff politics
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced original research in the culture of cannabis smoking, with problems not fixed since the first nomination over 2 years ago. It was "no consensus" wiuth votes of kind "Keep with the proviso that the article is cleaned up and properly sourced," which was not done. I reckon the article blew its fair chance. - Altenmann >t 01:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the sources that I came up with in the last AFD discussion were added to the article by the closing administrator and unsourced content was removed reducing the article to a stub. That the subsequent expansion wasn't done well is just a reason to re-stub once again and insist upon proper, verifiable, original research free, expansion.  (Note that there have been "Somebody do something!" calls on the article's talk page, with people not realizing that they are somebody, and they can do something.) There's no deadline, AFD isn't a hammer, and we all have the tools to excise bad content. Uncle G (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go. It's stubbed once again.  And I didn't have to exercise a single administrator tool to do so.  I could even have done it without my account.  (It was an editor without an account that re-added the bad content, notice.)  Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Is this a neologism? I see mild usage in google news/books, but nothing that gives significant coverage to the term Corpx (talk) 09:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read the sources cited in the stub?— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  09:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but assumed that if such sources were in abundance, they'd be used to cite claims in article, as opposed to just being listed under "Further Readings" Corpx (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well on second thought, I looked up page 64-65 of Illegal drug markets: from research to prevention policy and failed to find any significant coverage for the term in those pages.  Most of the other books in the further readings dont specify page numbers Corpx (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also fail to see any significant coverage for this term in James Bong's Ultimate SpyGuide to Marijuana, which is also listed as a further reading. Since the entire "further reading" section was added en masse by a user, I have my reservations about the validity of the rest of the entries. Corpx (talk) 09:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest opening your eyes and reading, instead of taking such a superficial approach to sources that are cited. You haven't even looked at the correct pages, going by the URLs that you supply.  And you'll find a description of what potentially useful information is in each source &mdash; which doesn't necessarily involve the precise two words "spliff politics" and so which will involve actually reading the source in order to extract &mdash; given in the last AFD discussion.  Read that, too.  You haven't even read this AFD discussion, where you'll find explained who "a user" is and where what xe added came from.  Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You say, "which doesn't necessarily involve the precise two words", in other words, the wikipedia page is Original Research. Mukadderat (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Tosh and nonsense, and as an editor of long standing you should know both policy and how to evaluate sources better than that. We don't just look for arbitrary phrases with search engines.  We read.  You can start that reading by reading what was said about the sources in the prior AFD discussion.  What's in the sources and how they relate to the article/subject at hand has been handed to you on a platter, two years ago, and you aren't even reading that. Uncle G (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in current form, as per Uncle G. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge. Not much here to keep. Better to merge what little is left into drug subculture to expand that article. Also, this is only my personal view but, I have problems with the title.. It just brings up the image of a bunch of stoners sitting around and chatting about politics, two things which don't really go well together. :) -- &oelig; &trade; 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G & OlEnglish, and also because a brief explanatory article is useful when so many other articles already link to it; this is far from an orphan. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Many? You must be joking or see no difference between wikipedia articles and other wikipedia pages. Mukadderat (talk) 23:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not joking, but something about you and the article nominator going around the whole website right after I said that, and wiping out links to this article without awaiting the result of this afd, in an attempt to orphan it, doesn't quite seem above-board. Can't you at least wait for consensus? If the consensus is to delete this article, and this article is deleted, then I will have no objection to your doing so.  Please be patient. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No evidence presented that the term has standard usage. The list of "further reading" are general references about cannabis smoking, i.e., hardly a reference. Mukadderat (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to run with Merge to drug subculture. On reviewing those sources I can reasonably access, I agree that there is room for content on "Spliff politics" on Wikipedia, but I have not found coverage substantial enough to warrant a separate article; and I tend to take the view that a smaller number of articles, each with more content and more eyes watching it, is preferable to fragmented content scattered over many pages, each observed only by a few editors.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the mergists club. :) I've changed my !vote to merge as well, there's not much left of this article since the latest removals and I'd rather go for higher quality articles rather than one-paragraph stubs. -- &oelig; &trade; 03:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find with drug subculture article, SM - I didn't know about that one, but I too can see the argument for merging there, so that would be an okay second choice with me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 06:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nothing more than a non-notable WP:NEO. No evidence the term is used widely used and doesn't seem like a likely search term, so I'm going to pass on the idea of a redirect. It got a 2 year pass with a promise to demonstrate notability. Times up. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We cover topics, not particular words and the topic in this case is the etiquette associated with smoking marijuana, right?  This is known by many names and so we need to cast our net wide when looking for sources.  I browsed a little and soon found this excellent source.  The rest is matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 2 September 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.