Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outdoor Cannabis cultivation

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-08 08:15Z

Outdoor Cannabis cultivation

Wikipedia is not a How To guide Alex Bakharev 11:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 11:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 13:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, we're not a howto guide. Second, the article is written in a POV showing that the author is aware of one very important detail: the primary audience lives in the United States, where it is illegal to even possess marijuana. I could be wrong about my concerns, but I'm under the impression that this alone would put WP in a really bad position. --Dennisthe2 15:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change vote to Keep per the following discussion. Thanks for the enlightenment. =^^= --Dennisthe2 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - This isn't remotely a how-to or recipe, but a technical description of a process; normally I'd support a merge to the main article, but that would make it way too long. Dennisthe2, if you're concerned about describing a possibly illegal act on Wikipedia, you probably shouldn't read Heroin manufacturing, Ricin manufacture or Nuclear weapon design in that case. In any case, it is not necessarily illegal to grow cannabis, even in the US, but only to grow/sell it without a licence; it's farmed commercially worldwide under licence (mainly to make canvas and for fish bait). - iridescenti (talk to me!) 15:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge with article below~~ - I agree with iridescenti's reasons for keeping, and I further believe that merging it back into the main article would result in too long an entry. For this reason, I propose a merge, not with the main Cannabis article, but with Indoor Cannabis cultivation (see AfD discussion below) to create a general Cannabis cultivation article (it is currently just a disambig. for these two and another article anyway) with the information from these two current articles as two main sections. Redirects from these two to the cultivation article could then be set in place. Together they can provide a complete and encyclopedic view of the topic, and I don't see the need for two separate articles unless they individually become significantly larger than they now are. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Changing my vote to Keep due to the discussion below regarding the reason for splitting. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Is it just me, or is both the creators and deltetors forgot there's wikiversity and wikibooks that exist? This is the third time today where I suggest to transwiki to wikibooks! 142.58.101.27 20:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the logic there? It's totally inappropriate for Wikibooks. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable subject and verifiable RaveenS 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep.This article includes a lot of interesting information. You must consult with biologists before deleting it.Biophys 21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, verifiable and certainly not a how-to guide. The legal argument is without substance, as even literature explaining in detail how to grow marijuana is legal to publish and distribute in the USA. See this site for examples. TimVickers 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per my comments for the below section. Xanucia 23:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. this is not an how-to article. Frankly, I thought from the title that it would be, but then I read the article itself. It is an apparently objective description of the cultivation of a notable plant. There is adequate sourcing; there is undoubtedly more available, since only published books were used. As for legality, NPOV is demonstrated as the article specifically discusses this aspect. The existence of the two articles is justified by their length, most of which is specific to the individual method. DGG 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am definitely not an author of the article, I Wikipedia:Split it along with Alternative Cannabis cultivation, and Indoor Cannabis cultivation from Cannabis cultivation. It was marked ready to split, and discussed on the talk page, so I did. [Mαc Δαvιs] (How's my driving?) ❖ 07:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unsure why nomination was made, doesn't appear to make reference to any wikipedia policy I can find which allows for deletion. Cloveoil 12:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete; maybe move all or part of the article to Wikibooks.--dannycas 22:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Its a good article, no reason to delete it. It may be more appropriate for wikibooks, but a cannabis cultivation wikibook was already started and then deleted by some guy. If someone else were to start a wikibook (I dont know how things work over there) I would assist in moving things over there for it.
Keep Can't see the reason for deletion here either. Adamantios 21:48, 6 April 2007 (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.