Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City Diesel (cannabis)

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. There seems to be no appetite for deletion here. This discussion shouldn't preclude merging to Cannabis strains or elsewhere down the track if that's supported by a discussion and consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New York City Diesel (cannabis)

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

Notability not established. BullRangifer (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory look at the news shows that it's often mentioned as a specific type of cannabis in conjunction with articles about legal and illegal marijuana use. It is also reviewed as a type. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I expanded the article. It's an award-winning cultivar and popular for both recreational and medical use. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl, thank you for trying to improve the article with more sources. This is the proper thing to do.
I am concerned that several of your sources do not meet our RS requirements. We try to avoid purely commercial sources (a seed seller) and minor in house type sources. Try to find sources outside of the marijuana world to establish its notability. Marijuana blogs, websites, and rags are a dime a dozen, and very few meet our sourcing requirements. Has it been mentioned in the major media? One can easily establish the "notability" of practically any strain simply because it's mentioned by such in house sources, but that's not good enough. That's not what we mean by "establish notability". It needs to also be known outside the marijuana world. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure what the one struck 'keep' is supposed to mean. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The strain has a review in High Times (here}, which does confer some notability for the topic. Regarding the striking above of the !vote above, another user performed this, because only one !vote is allowed per discussion (although unlimited comments are allowed). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Merge to Cannabis strains, if the topic is not independently notable enough for a standalone article. The High Times review is enough to verify content, and the strain has been awarded multiple times. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry about the double "Keeps"... I meant to write comment and wasn't paying attention. I did find sources from newspapers and two different books. It seemed to me though, that many of the major sources would be connected to the "marijuana world" just because of the taboo nature of the topic (still). But as a type, it is mentioned in several news sources, but these were just mentions and I couldn't use them in the article. I think its useful to have a listing of what it is in Wikipedia, though I think that merging to Cannabis strains might be a good idea, too. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google search reveals quite a bit of information on the strain, and it is mention numerous times in news articles. This satisfatorily establishes notability, in my book. --ceradon (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2015 (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.