Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of marijuana slang terms 2

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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of marijuana slang terms

• None of these terms are attributed to any context, making this article unverifiable. For example, none of these terms clarify what culture or subculture or what time period they originate from.
• Similarly, none of the claims in this article are sourced; in fact, the whole article is unverified.
• This article is a vandalism magnet; I glanced over the list and spotted a great deal of obvious vanity and vandalism, and the history is equally disheartening.
• This article has no criteria; if I and my friends have a word we made up, there's nothing stopping us from adding it to this list.
• This list cannot ever possibly be complete, and the intro even admits this.

This is a wholly unencyclopedic article to the point of being impossible to fix, and even if it could be fixed, it wouldn't belong on this project, per

Incidentally, this was previously nominated on AFD, with a result of no consensus. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article has already been added to AntiWikipedia , so it doesn't need to be here anymore. Get rid of it as soon as possible.BrandNew21 09:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it's been added to an unrelated web site. So? That's as if I said, "We can delete this article, because I copied it to my LiveJournal." -- Kicking222 11:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with bafflement as to how the previous AfD didn't stick. Rampantly unverifiable, some of these seem totally implausible and sound like
  things made up in school one day, and keeping it is like putting up a neon sign that says "bored stoners, please screw around with this!" Opabinia regalis 06:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Never underestimate how appallingly low some peoples standards are. There are many who treat "notable" and "verifiable" as synonyms. Oh. And Delete, per above. -- GWO
• Strong delete,
  talk. o.o;; 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Ridiculously strong delete per all above. SM247^{My Talk} 10:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strooooong delete per everyone above. I just wanted to make sure this gets closer to deletion, as opposed to the last vote's ridiculous "no consensus". -- Kicking222 11:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've removed all the unsourced content... which is to say all of it... and placed it on the talk page. I personally have no objection to this topic whatsoever, believe most of the content is probably valid, but all of it, like all of WIkipedia, is subject to the
  verifiability policy. If people wish to find sources for the items and move them back into the article as sources are found, I think it would be a perfectly acceptable article. I'm not going to vote yet; I want to see whether there's any evidence that the editors of the page are willing to do the minimal research work needed to make this a legitimate article. When there are at least a dozen sourced entries in the article, and no unsourced entries, I'll suggest "strong keep" and lobby everyone who's suggestion deletion to change their suggestion. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC) P. S. I've moved back one, with a reference, to start the ball rolling... and the reference I used could be used as a source for some half-a-dozen more entries.Dpbsmith (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Strong Delete as above. Antiwikipedia already has this list. Direct all bored stoners to antiwikipedia.Bwithh 17:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alias Flood 17:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopedic listcruft. --MCB 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Puff, puff, delete per nomination in accordance with several parts of
  WP:NOT; add "Wikipedia is not a jargon or usage guide." Also lamely fails to include dope or stoned (not to mention less ubiquitous terms such as 4:20, dugout, lid, muggles (jazz/blues jargon), number, et cetera). In support of Dpbsmith's effort, I'll go do some research. Barno 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Never mind the "fails to include" part... I was only looking at the junk slapped back into the main list-page. Now I see that the old better (but unsourced original research) list that Dpbsmith moved to the talk page has 67 percent of my examples. Barno 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete per almost every reason cited above. Fan1967 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Zos 23:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete for reasons stated above. --Phoenix Hacker 09:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete for reasons stated above - this article is totally meaningless and also attracts a lot of vandalism. --Draicone ^(talk) 23:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I wouldn't call it a vandal magnet, but if you take a look at the history over the last few days you will see that it is certainly an original research magnet. A couple of dozen entries have been made, all by non-logged-in-users, all of unsourced material, often without even a definition. I tried to contact one of these editors on their Talk page, with no luck. I do not see any credible prospects that this article will ever separate established, verifiable terminology from local usage or usage within a small circle of acquaintances. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2006 (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.