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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article has basically become a guide to various methods of marijuana smoking. It's full of contentious statements and a staggering amount of original research.

Let me be clear that I do think this topic is notable, and it does deserve an article — but this isn't it. An article on cannabis smoking should cover the social phenomenon, the way it's viewed in different cultures, the history of the practice, and so forth. Not this atrocity, which I view simply as a guide to gettin' toasted.

One possibility could be to migrate most of the content to a more appropriate title, like "Cannabis smoking methods". The content would still be pretty lousy, but at least that would make way for a total rewrite of "Cannabis smoking".

Either way, I believe the slate needs to be wiped clean to make way for a completely rewritten article that's actually worthy of the encyclopedia entry "Cannabis smoking". Equazcion •✗/C • 21:50, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I see a lot more information than just a how-to guide. With a little expansion and cleaning up I can see it reaching GA status. It needs way more references, which shouldn't be TOO hard to find, and that's why the maintenance tags are there. -- OlEnglish (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, more than a how to guide. "I believe the slate needs to be wiped clean to make way for a completely rewritten article that's actually worthy of the encyclopedia entry Cannabis smoking"....well, why don't you be bold and do it then.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 22:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean, blank the article? I don't think that'd go over too well... I know, if you think an article is notable but the content is bad, you can't nominate it for deletion, just edit it... Well, that's just not how it works, yet. I'm suggesting deleting the article on a content basis, which isn't uncommon. Someone needs to write an essay on "no deleting articles for content", and try getting it promoted to guideline... but til then, here we are. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:45, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • "that's just not how it works, yet". You're kidding right? I have to ask, did you actually read what to before nominating an article for deletion, especially the first point?  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'll have to make a specific argument, rather than just saying "haven't you read the rules", if you want me to respond. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:17, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- We don't delete articles on notable subjects unless there's no content of value there, which is clearly not the case for this article. Article deletion is not a substitute for editing. Feel free to remove any OR or HOWTO material from the article, and add information on the worthwhile subjects you mentioned. If the article is expanded as you recommend, there might some day be reason to create a separate Cannabis smoking methods article per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE; but that's not a subject for AfD. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove all the OR -- I really would -- but since that would basically mean blanking the majority of the article, I thought it better to bring the issue here and let the community decide. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:49, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
    • Articles under AfD can't be blanked, but they can be stubbed; of course, if you delete material that other editors don't view as OR, they are entitled to revert those edits. That's how this type of problem is supposed to be resolved -- not via this forum. See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing, Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#What_is_deletion_not_for.3F, Wikipedia:ATA#Poorly_written_article, among others, if you have any further doubts. If you do delete material, please remember to make a note here so other !voters are aware of significant page changes. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well there's more than just the OR concern, there's the contentious statements and its guide-like nature. Since removing everything that fell under those categories would leave a mere sentence or two... in my opinion... not much different from a deletion... I chose nominating instead. The debate over deletions for content, and how much bad content should make a deletion necessary, is far from settled. I believe this article is sufficiently full of bad content as to warrant its deletion. You seem to disagree. We can leave it at that. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:24, 11 Feb 2009 (UTC)
• Keep/Rename This is a perfectly decent article, although I'd be happier if it had a great many more in-line citations, particularly in the Homemade and single-toke sections. The nominator's suggestion of a name change has some validity since "Cannibus smoking" is a loaded sociological (and political) term. "Cannibus smoking methods" (or some variation) would be a more accurate description of the article's content. No particular malice to the nom, but this shouldn't have come to AfD. A talk page straw poll for a name change would have been more appropriate. -Markeer 00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well screw you too buddy! Just kidding. :D Equazcion •✗/C • 00:16, 12 Feb 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Needs a major edit and re-write, including new sections on historical use and current social phenomenon & effects, etc, (along with numerous citations) in order to improve article, which I think would be preferable to a wipe/delete method. Agree that modification of title would also help the article progress. Marek.69 ^talk 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepNeeds an edit as almost every page that ends up here does. Regardless a useful topic that is not a how-to guide. --Crunch (talk) 04:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Topic is notable, topic is resourced and provides references, and with regards to article quality, I'd think that WP:SOFIXIT would apply. — Ched (talk) 07:04, 13 February 2009 (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.