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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blackjack (cannabis)

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed with nothing but an insult. This is a non-notable strain of cannabis, lacking reliable sourcing. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of--well, same reason:

So where is the discussion about this? Drmies has flagged my entry for deletion based purely on PERSONAL PREFERENCE. Who is Drmies to make the decision that Blackjack is a "non-notable" strain of marijuana. How can someones personal preference dictate what is displayed on Wikipedia. If that is the case, then I have a personal issue with a lot of different articles. As I have stated before. I WILL CONTINUE TO LIST INDIVIDUAL MARIJUANA STRAINS regardless of the PERSONAL OPINIONS of a few members of the ANTI-MARIJUANA LOBBY. It doesn't matter to me or anyone else if YOU have an issue with this perticular thing. Personal opinion doesn't trump the thousands of scientific findings in the cannabis industry. There are not "Notable" or "Non-Notable" strains.
As for citing Leafly.com as a blog? No. Perhaps the person flagging this article isn't familar with Leafly. That is not a concern of mine or anyone elses. In the Medical Marijuana industry we use Leafly.com as a tool that helps us find the exact strain that will help a patient. These are actual Medical Patients with very specific medical issues. Certain strains may be more beneficial than others. Wikipedia is a great place for those that are curious to learn.
Stop hindering peoples knowledge. Back off.
The deletion flag MUST be removed from my articles. Deleting the pages will do nothing as I will continue to list them in protest. This is a guarantee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- SteveMcQueen36, yelling at me is not going to help your case. This is an encycopedia, not a self-help manual. I have no personal opinion on your subject, except that it's not notable by our standards. If you find thousands of scientific findings pertaining to this particular strain, cite them--but you are consistently confusing this strain with cannabis in general. And saying you won't stop listing things is only going to get you blocked. As for me making the decision, and your asking "where is the discussion"--look at the screen. This is the discussion, and it's editors here making the decision. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources pertaining to the subject. Last sources was from June 2015. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant independent coverage outside of highly specialized sources (in this case, the lone reference is to a website which specializes in listing marijuana strains). And @SteveMcQueen36: this article was nominated for deletion because it lacks reliable sources, and thus cannot be proven to meet the general notability guideline by which all articles are judged. While it is understandable to be upset when an article you created is nominated for deletion, you should always assume good faith with other editors, and make your case by citing relevant guidelines and by providing sources to back up your claims, not by making accusations or threats. If you continue to do things like that, you may be blocked from editing. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable sources. I searched as far as I could and found nothing outside of the blogs and grower sites. The problem is longstanding: the laws making cannabis illegal in the United States since the 1930s have effectively prevented serious research, thus preventing development of the kind of reliable, third party sources Wikipedia generally relies on to support its articles. This is not the place to publish original research. Come back in a few years, perhaps. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supporting this AfD, I have discovered, 'is ideal for depression, stress, pain and muscle spasms leaving the user feeling relaxed and happy.' So it had some purpose then. By the way, as per the cogent notions above. _Muffled ^Pocketed 20:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm feeling a muscle spasm coming up. Be back in five. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Colonel Wilhelm Klink, User:Glane23, User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, User:LuK3, I added another strain to this AfD. This one is very versatile and fights pain; I believe we can all benefit from that. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fine guys. I understand what you are saying. However, this conversation is moot if you are not in the Marijuana industry. You guys keep supressing the information that needs to be put out there for people's health. This is why Marijuana research stagnates. People like you DECIDE amongst yourselves that Granddaddy Purple (GDP) isn't worthy of a Wikipedia page but Diesel (Cannabis) is? Are you serious? Who makes that call? Not anyone that cares about Marijuana.

Go ahead and mock me. Message eachother and get these pages blocked. This is IMPORTANT information that users are going to need. Also, LEAFLY.com isn't a blog. We use this site in the industry all of the time. It is one of the worlds best resources for Cannabis. What classifies it as a blog? Just beacuse it isn't a mainstream website like CNN.com? Drmies why don't you go ahead and pull up 10 random pages and let's see how many blogs are cited. Get a grip. Stop hindering peoples knowledge. These are actual Medical Patients with very specific medical issues. Certain strains may be more beneficial than others. Wikipedia is a great place for those that are curious to learn.

LUK3 - Nothing has changed with the strain since that article was cited. Who cares how old it is?

Also, I don't know how you can all sit there and tell me that personal preference doesn't play a part here? It's all personal preference. User:SteveMcQueen36

Again, I apologize for coming off hot. But if I can't post this stuff on here then I would rather be banned from posting on Wikipedia. It's no wonder this place sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveMcQueen36 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't apologize for "coming off hot" and insulting me again in the same post--"get a grip". This may be the internet, but that doesn't mean you have to leave your manners at the door. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SteveMcqueen36: The reason I object to this article is the same reason I object to other articles of this sort: you have not proven that it is notable through multiple, independent, reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a place where anything and everything that exists/has existed/will exist gets a page; "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Every article must meet the notability guidelines as has been mentioned; the fact that it doesn't meet the requirement does not mean that it is false or unimportant or wrong, or that anyone has anything against it. It simply means that it does not merit inclusion in the encyclopedia.

As for your additional comments, no one is mocking you. If it came across that way, I apologize. Do not feel that the criticism weighed against you is personal; everybody here has to obey these guidelines, including those of us who have participated in this discussion.

If you can provide sources which meet the source guidelines, and which display notability of the topic (generally, multiple citations from multiple publications are needed), I will gladly change my position in this discussion. However, since that has not happened, and I have no reason to believe it will, I must favor deletion. Thank you. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (^Complaints|_Mistakes) 21:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete White Buffalo (Cannabis) as well - same reasoning, just to be clear. Leafly.com is not a reliable source for the same reasons Pfizer.com also is not: they're vendor sites not edited or fact-checked by unrelated third parties. As much as I might enjoy doing some original research on these strains, the no original research rule applies. And right now, as I mentioned earlier, there is no no other kind available. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I am sure that Leafly is a useful website, it is not a reliable source for establishing notability on Wikipedia, because it compiles anonymous user reviews. Just as a restaurant is not notable just because it has lots of Yelp reviews, a marijuana strain is not notable just because it has lots of Leafly reviews. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as I have found nothing better and there's still nothing convincing for its own article. SwisterTwister talk 18:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the discussions above, not enough independent and reliable sources to validate this article. Unfortunately finding any reliable third-party research on this topic is generally difficult because of its legal status, but at this time we don't have anything to work with. No original research. ERK^talk 22:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.