Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Purple Haze (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 delete. Sandstein 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Haze (cannabis)

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

Article has become non-encyclopedic, not notable, and unreferenced after recent removal of non-contextual content Mjpresson (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition:Nominated for deletion. After removal of non-contextual content mostly related to a type of "LSD" with this name and no mention of cannabis, the article has no encyclopedic content and most likely never will as there is not really an official cannabis strain with this name, it's a colloquial term.--Mjpresson (talk) 04:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Delete (see below) - I'm not sure what content could be included, but the good amount of book hits suggests that such content does exist, even if it is only to state that it is widespread colloquial term and not an actual strain. Even if no such content can be produced at all, a merge and redirect to LSD seems in order - frankieMR (talk) 04:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep an article that consists of one challenged sentence?--Mjpresson (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about these "book hits", Patitomr. I went through 3 Google Books pages without seeing any reference to Purple Haze in the context of cannabis.--Mjpresson (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the search I tried [1]. I'm not familiar with the subject so I can't say whether it is related to cannabis or not, but my point was that even if it isn't the moniker "Purple Haze" seems to be notable if only as a subcultural fabrication - frankieMR (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the fact that you voted to keep this article is puzzling and even nonsensical. Have you seen the article?--Mjpresson (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the content is factually wrong then it must be replaced and sourced. Now, if what you mean is that no such content is attainable then merge and redirect to LSD, but I doubt that there is nothing to be said about the concept and its usage - frankieMR (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would challenge you to find that. The article is specifically titled Purple Haze (cannabis), while you are approaching it as a general colloquial term.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a rename might be required. I went through the books and I still think that there is definitely content to build an article with. Here are some links relating it to cannabis [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], and these relating it to LSD [7] [8] [9] [10]. There were more hits in scholar, but it is difficult since you can only see the abstract, so I only brought this one [11]. The snippet that google pulled it with was "... Continued inbreeding of the original favorable crosses resulted in some of the “super-sativas” of the 1970s, such as Original Haze, Purple Haze, Pollyanna, Eden Gold, Three Way, Maui Wowie, Kona Gold, and Big Sur Holy Weed. 11. THE INTRODUCTION OF INDICA ..." - frankieMR (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article slightly. I hope it is in order - frankie (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^talk _stalk 21:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While some of my students know what purple haze is, the same is not a notable neologism. Delete. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: None of the references given above can really be used as they are just mentions from non-citable sources. I seriously tried to incorporate them all but it just doesn't work, if you look at them. Again, this article pertains to cannabis per its title, so the numerous references to LSD are not pertinent here and doesn't belong in the discussion, in my opinion. Of course there was probably a strain with this name, so what? There is a strain called Cat Piss and another called Charlie Sheen so do they qualify to have 2-sentence, unreferenced articles about them?--Mjpresson (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then it can be merged and redirected - frankie (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frankie, that makes no sense. Merge what to what? Redirect what to what? Preposterous, I say.--Mjpresson (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, I got the terms figured wrong. When I said redirect I mean what is currently done by the dab. By merge I mean that the content around the term is not spurious, so that it should be included at the relevant targets - frankie (talk) 23:33, 6 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.