Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis-associated respiratory disease

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 merge to Long-term effects of cannabis.  Sandstein  11:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis-associated respiratory disease[edit]

Cannabis-associated respiratory disease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails to meet WP:N and looks to be based on synthesis. No secondary sources could be found for this term in a cursory search, it may only exist here. All sourced material is discussed in multiple related articles already, as they are oft-cited studies. Anything not mentioned elsewhere could be merged with Effects of cannabis, Long-term effects of cannabis and/or Cannabis (drug).petrarchan47tc 05:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep The nomination is self-contradictory in that it claims the topic is not notable but then says that we discuss it extensively elsewhere and that the studies are "oft-cited". It then talks of merger which is a contraindication for deletion per WP:SK and WP:MAD. Note also that there are aspects not yet covered, such as the adulteration of cannabis with sand which can cause alveolar haemorrhage. I found this additional material in seconds by searching for the keywords of the current title and so they seem to work well enough. Warden (talk) 15:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Note also that there are aspects not yet covered, such as the adulteration of cannabis with sand..." - (POV alarm now ringing madly)... On what planet do they adulterate pot with sand?!?! Carrite (talk) 16:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK a few years back there was a period of about six-months, when marijuana was doing the rounds which'd had fibreglass added by some unscrupulous types (to give the appearance of trichromes), this stuff appeared to be sand if you chewed the plant.
Specifically, the oft-cited content I was referring to are the studies comprising the majority of the article, saying cannabis doesn't cause cancer or harm. The only content (with a working link) that doesn't appear to be mentioned in other articles is a ten-person study (which also fails to show harm). petrarchan47tc 19:25, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently doing a full revision of long-term effects of cannabis, and I fully support a merge. There are some POV problems there too, and adding this information certainly wouldn't make it too long. Ideally this would happen soon so that this information can be included in my revision. Thanks. Exercisephys (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see anything to merge? petrarchan47tc 03:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll review it today and let you know. Exercisephys (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep – I think. I'm not an AfD expert. But WP:SK does indeed say, "Reasons for a speedy keep decision are:...The nominator ... fails to advance an argument for deletion —perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." Seems to apply to me. Maybe this belongs at WP:PM? AgnosticAphid talk 19:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PM would be a good step if anything is mergable. Personally, I don't see any novel, notable, valid information in this article. It seemed like deletion was in order, given Wikipedia is the only source for this term in RS. The definition of the term in the Intro has no ref, and appears to be made up by Wikipedia editors. petrarchan47tc 19:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the title is awkward or improper does not mean that the subject is unencyclopedic. WP:SET notes that Google can't "Guarantee you aren't missing crucial references through choice of search expression." And if you don't think there was anything worth merging then why does your nomination say that anything not mentioned elsewhere should be merged, and why would 2 editors have recommended merging? AgnosticAphid talk 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with an awkward title, rather that according to RS, the subject doesn't exist except here, using synthesis. I see no proof otherwise, unless there is an alternate term being used. "Anything not mentioned elsewhere", as far as I know, is this: In a study of ten smokers with mild respiratory issues Hii et al. found evidence of lung disease in the form of severe bullae (fluid-filled, thin-walled blisters) of different shapes and sizes. Despite such lung disease, the patients' chest x-rays were normal and lung function was only mildly reduced in nearly half of the patients".
I left open the option that I have may have missed something else, but I know the content of the related articles quite well and as far as I'm aware, only this study is novel, supported by RS, and subject to merge. Most importantly, the subject is not supported by the content. The two other editors may not have read this article and compared it with the related ones (which would take hours), so may have assumed a merge was warranted based on my initial comments. petrarchan47tc 20:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One simply needs to read one of the sources supplied: The impact of cannabis on your lungs to see that there's a notable topic here. Mixing this topic up with other health effects of cannabis usage such as its effects on the brain or other organs is unlikely to be productive. The article long-term effects of cannabis has a {{POV}} banner tag on it and its talk page contains comments like "It seems like this article was written by a person who disapproves of the use of cannabis, and was then edited by a person who actively uses cannabis. ... This page has become a matted net of cruft". Trying to merge this material into that would be making a bad problem worse. KISS. Warden (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated, the amount of material to be merged is questionable, with only one very small study novel to this article. The rest of the content is covered in 3 different articles already (Later edit: make that four). As for banners, the article in question has been tagged since 2010 for NPOV, and has another tag stating, This article may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. (June 2010). The talk page shows others have had concerns similar to mine. Your mention of an attack comment from a talk page is a bit surprising to see in this discussion, frankly, and seems quite inappropriate.
Perhaps the title should read Respiratory effects of cannabis and the Intro rewritten accordingly. Given that both a potential for and lack of harm are discussed, with the majority of the content showing the latter, imo a neutral title is in order if the article is preserved. petrarchan47tc 22:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden, I was the one that wrote that comment and added the {POV} template, and I accompanied it with the fact that I'm currently revising the whole page. I support the merge because it will give me an opportunity to incorporate the respiratory information (much of which is already there) and review it. Exercisephys (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I added my opinion above but forgot to give a vote. I agree that the title carries an inherent bias. Additionally, this amount of information could be fit comfortably into long-term effects of cannabis, and it fits well within the purview of that topic. If this merge is done soon it will also be copy edited and updated in my full revision of long-term effects of cannabis. Exercisephys (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems a notable subject per se, not a POV-fork. However a merge is fine, if preserves the information in full. --Cyclopiatalk 16:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything worth keeping (i.e. that which is sourced to MEDRS-compliant sources). A lot of it isn't and can go. --John (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the non-redundant content that meets WP:MEDRS, and delete the rest. Götz (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this material into Long Term Effects of Cannabis. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And Warden is ignoring our guideline on appropriate notification. What you've described is not inappropriate and fully supported. Got it? Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator started canvassing right after the Keep !vote on the 24th. He doesn't seem to have done much else since which makes him something of a SPA too. Warden (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The facts show otherwise. Definitely not an SPA. Got anything else up your sleeves? Viriditas (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's his user page - what's your point? Please explain who you guys are and what your interest in this matter is. To start you off, please understand that I just came across this AFD in the usual way - by patrolling AFD. The nomination seemed procedurally faulty and so I recommended a SK accordingly. I looked for, found and read multiple scholarly sources about the topic, in which I have no personal interest. My impression is that this is a battleground topic infested with partisans. Which side are you on? Warden (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That user page link goes to an edit history stat page showing that he isn't an SPA, that's my point. What's the deal with your "who you guys are and what your interest in this" line of reasoning? Where's the battle and who are the partisans? Do you see me weighing in on this discussion? Nope, but you sure are with your "speedy keep" and blind, unsubstantiated accusations about the motivations of other editors. Again, he who smelt it dealt it holds true. The lone voice crying about everyone else is always the guy responsible for the problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I've done something wrong by letting editors know of this discussion, I wasn't aware of it. I simply looked through related articles' edit histories and left messages on talk pages. The timing for these messages is due to this discussion being closed soon (tomorrow?). Warden, you may have found "effects on the lungs from cannabis smoke", which is something others have found as well, and have covered in at least 3 articles already. However, the preponderance of evidence regarding effects on lungs does NOT support "Cannabis-associated respiratory disease", and even shows more protective effects than damage. A few minutes of research won't give anyone the full picture, and without the backing of a substantial amount of research, I fail to see how your comments could be considered helpful. This article attempts to describe a condition which does not exist, which is why in the the Intro, the description of this condition has no refs whatsoever - a Wiki editor made it up out of thin air - that is enough for a speedy delete in my mind, the impetus for this AfD. Your paranoid conspiracy theories are most unhelpful. Your earlier comments show substantial cherry-picking and a knee-jerk response instead of an informed one. That you found "a period of about six-months, when marijuana was doing the rounds which'd had fibreglass added by some unscrupulous types" as justification for this article shows a massive POV problem on your end. petrarchan47tc 00:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Exercisephys (talk) 02:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator's comments seem disingenuous as he doesn't explain why he started contacting other editors right after a Keep !vote. The nominator and his associates don't explain their interest in the topic. And now I look further into this, I notice that the nominator didn't notify the original creator of the article, as is customary and recommended by WP:AFD. That editor, User:Arcadian, seems to be a respectable physician who works upon a variety of medical topics. This seems a telling omission. I shall rectify it now. Warden (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need to ask you to quit insinuating there is some teamwork going on here by using the term "associates". If you looked through records, you would see that Rlsheehan and I have never agreed on anything, and that Gotz and Jon have never had contact with me before. There is no reason for your paranoia. I have already said I would be fine with a Merge, and with the current stats, that's exactly what will happen. And that was the case even after the second Delete vote, before the 2 new Merge votes. petrarchan47tc 06:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My alarm bell started ringing when I observed you discussing me with Viriditas. Did you know that he was recently blocked for such behaviour? Warden (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above - The title doesn't appear to be supported by any reliable sources as an existing recognized disease. I'm sure there are diseases associated with smoking anything, but this term appears to be original synthesis. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources
Getting back to the topic, I made another quick search to see what's out there that might help us. Here's some more:
  1. Pulmonary Effects of Marijuana Inhalation — a literature review
  2. Respiratory health effects of cannabis — Position Statement of The Thoracic Society of Australia and NZ
  3. Effects of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications — systematic review
These are the sort of sources which are recommended by WP:MEDRS, right? They seem to demonstrate that we have a valid topic here. They use a variety of language to describe the topic but its essential nature seems clear. Warden (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cannabis-associated_respiratory_disease&oldid=1137673293"