Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acapulco gold

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, per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 08:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acapulco gold[edit]

Delete. Factual accuracy has been disputed since last year, and there are no reliable sources which document this "strain" of marijuana. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is disputed, according to the talk page, because it shows the wrong image. Also, the article does contain at least one reliable reference. I found one too:
Russell, I. Willis; Mary Gray Porter (Winter 1982). "Among the New Words". American Speech. 57 (4). Duke University Press: 272. JSTOR 454629..
There might be a case for transwikification to Wiktionary if nothing more than a slang definition can be found in sources, but deletion is not needed as the accuracy dispute can be solved by removing the picture. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are 666 hits for this in Google books. It's a sign! Colonel Warden (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A sign of what? Have you actually taken a look at any of those hits? The majority of them are referring to a song by Rainy Daze and those that actually are relevant do not fall under the umbrella of reliable / non-trivial coverage. Please help me understand what its a sign of other than a sign that this article needs to be deleted. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken - few of those hits refer to the Rainy Daze song. This is a sign both of great notability and a failure to follow process. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only factual dispute I saw on the talk page was about an image, which has nothing to do with whether the whole article should be deleted. To have a listing in the OED and a linguistics article is way more notability than the average cultivar (of any plant) has. If there is something in the article which isn't supported by sources, and sources for it are not found, then delete those parts, not the whole article. I also won't express an opinion on transwikification to Wiktionary (not having looked enough at the sources), although I suspect it probably makes sense on Wikipedia. Kingdon (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If all we can say is "Acapulco gold is nickname for marijuana" then at best it should be a redirect or a page on Wiktionary. We need concrete sources not a thousand and one slang guides. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Acapulco Gold was the catch word of a generation when it came to good pot. There was marijuana... and there was Acapulco Gold. Notability easy to source. Article need correct image and then be expanded. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first, if not THE first "named" strains of marijuana. reffersmoke.com, druglibrary.org, weedbay.net, Acapulco Gold - 1973 Marijuana Documentary,et al. Then there's google scholar and google books. I never was much of a smoker... back in the day, but I sure rememeber Acapulco Gold. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:48, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kingdon and Schmidt - Draeco (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2009 (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.