Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spots


 * 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 redirect/merge to Cannabis smoking. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Spots

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is something I might expect to find in the far back pages of High Times magazine, but never an encyclopedia. Beyond being presented as a "how-to guide", it also fails to document any kind of a reliable source for the information. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep LOL…Welcome to 2007. As a product of the 60’s here state-side, I have never heard of the term.  However, in a quick search of the subject, I was able to find, under a very specific search criteria; Google 862,000 hits .3,010 hits Google Scholar  and 1,870 hits Google News,  I say keep! Shoessss |  Chat  00:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No offence Shoessss, but that must be the most useless Google search string I've ever seen. Skipping past the Youtube and Wikipedia mirrors, NONE of the top 20 hits are even close to related to this topic. Did you bother reading what you just cited?  I need not remind you that we're an encyclopedia here so I hope you know what would and would not be acceptable as a source.  Coccyx Bloccyx 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read. And yes I take offense! Still vote keep.  Here is an even more refined search that may be more to your liking .  The question I ask, is why when editors make a nomination to  Delete, they feel they must defend it, regardless.  Shoessss |  Chat  00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of aimlessly pointing people at largely irrelevant Google searches, how about you cite some actual sources that are acceptable for an encyclopedia? Here is the guideline you should follow: Reliable sources and let me know if you find any.  Coccyx Bloccyx 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry Coccyx Bloccyx I do not have the time, I’m Spotsing. Shoessss | Chat  00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because this is a discussion, not a vote. You've been asked to cite sources.  You haven't.  The article doesn't cite any, either.  Your claim that the article is verifiable and contains no original research is thus unsupported.  You need to cite sources in order for such a claim to hold water.  Articles that are unverifiable original research are deleted.  Uncle G 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up See below  BLACK KITE  11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) .  Well-known practice, mainly known as "hot-knifing" here.  Appears to be a good few refs out there for this name.  Oh, and "Toasters are not recommended as this can cause serious injury or death" - well, just LOL.  BLACK KITE  01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please cite three such sources. The onus here at AFD is to show that sources actually exist, from which an article can be built.  You haven't done so.  Uncle G 02:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 *  BLACK KITE  07:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. That's what everyone should be doing at AFD.  Now there's something to hang a discussion on. All of those sources are articles about Cannabis smoking, which give this method of smoking it a treatment that varies from 1 sentence to 1 paragraph, in amongst a list of other methods.  The principles underpinning our concept of notability are that the encyclopaedia should deal with subjects in the same way that the sources do.  See User:Uncle G/On notability.  As such, Wikipedia should discuss this method of smoking cannabis within an article on the various ways of smoking cannabis.  And &mdash; Lo! &mdash; we find that Cannabis smoking already exists and gives this subject the same level of treatment that the sources do.  Moreover, the sources don't support quite a lot of the content of the current article, and all of what they do support is already in either Cannabis smoking or Cannabis (drug) itself.  So the sources that you've cited support the conclusion that, stripped of the unverifiable content, this is a duplicate article that should be redirected to Cannabis smoking. Uncle G 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm what Uncle G just said, I just wasted a solid ten minutes looking at these links and none of them verified the information in the Spots article. I just want to reaffirm that I still think we ought to delete this article.  Coccyx Bloccyx 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I hadn't noticed that section in Cannabis smoking. It doesn't have enough individual notability, so I agree; merge anything useful (including some of those sources) to that article and Redirect.  BLACK KITE  11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into Cannabis (drug) or create article Methods of consuming Cannabis. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 09:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. Uncle G 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been listed on the to-do list for WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom due to irreconcilable differences with sources. RFerreira (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge -- agree 100% with BrewcrewerAudhumlaX (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2007 (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.