Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toronto Hydro (marijuana)


 * 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.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Toronto Hydro (marijuana)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 17:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Coccyx Bloccyx 19:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are you asking why when it says why on the top of this page? Stop wasting space on Wikipedia, please! Coccyx Bloccyx 20:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of WP:NOREASON. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * TenPoundHammer is correct: a simple "keep" or "delete" expression with no reason given is useless for determining community consensus, and is only good for headcounting, which AfD is not. Asking "why?" is much less a waste of space than the reply timestamped 20:36. Barno 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, article as described gives no claim of notability, just unpublished community usage of a term to describe a broad class of cannabis, with no sources. On a quick look, the online mentions that I find appear to be user-submitted unverified content such as blog postings.  Can someone else provide sources meeting WP:RS? Barno 21:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this is not a head count, I don't think any further comment on this article is necessary. This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, not a noteworthy "strain" of marijuana.  Coccyx Bloccyx 22:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on now. There may very well be books and magazines from reputable non-vanity publishers which give substantial coverage to this topic and don't happen to be online.  Or some that I missed in a quick review of the first few pages of a Google search, or whose publisher's website blocks Google's spiders, or whose online mentions were blocked by my ISP.  "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is an absurd claim.  I'll change my vote to "keep" if a couple of sources are cited. Barno (talk) 14:50, 7 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.