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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis smoking etiquette[edit]

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

~~(Delete as nominator~~) This article is a non-encyclopedic essay on pot smoking. One flimsy reference. Contains how-to, OR, anecdotes, ect. Mjpresson (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is showing some promise after some attention. Mjpresson (talk) 05:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the unreferenced and non-reference-able "Double Toke" section go, it's full of the term "sucking" and no one has heard of this. I'd put in a keep vote if that can be removed.Mjpresson (talk) 05:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after improved.Mjpresson (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some of the content might could fit in Smoking culture, but this is not a properly encyclopedic article. Note that the promising external link does not address the topic. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Numerous sources appear to be listed under "Further reading" - has anyone attempted to access these to see if they can be used as references to support the content? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding references. The notability of the subject is unquestionable to anyone who has a proper look for sources. The article may consist mostly of apparent OR or conjecture, but that's a reason to improve it, not delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to vote delete before I checked out the article. It seems like a reasonable enough topic. Quotes from movie dialogue should be removed however, unless the movie really has something to say about the topic and another source says so. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough references for this to meet the GNG and therefore be a notable topic. Giant Snowman 21:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many references you have in an article, if the article is not notable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, so your argument doesn't seem supportable.Curb Chain (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is all subjective information. People above claim there are references, but they are not inline. Should we have an article about every culture and subculture? That's why we have a notability guideline(s).Curb Chain (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2011 (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.