Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dugout (smoking)

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 no consensus. Discussions about merging, etc. can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 07:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dugout (smoking)[edit]

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

This article seems to consist of someone's personal research. Unreferencable other than vendors. Questionable encyclopedic value.Mjpresson (talk) 05:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Rubbersocks (talk) 08:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a suitable reference. Of course the article still needs a lot of work. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a law enforcement officer I found the article helpful for the research I was doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.172.114.102 (talk)

That's funny but this isn't a joke. Rubbersocks (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking merge to Chillum (pipe). The "bat" is essentially a small, stylized chillum pipe. Most of this article is WP:OR, I think it could be trimmed into a new section in the rather brief article on the chillum. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with an expanded article, One-hitter (pipe). The generic concept of "one-hitter", having a crater-diameter narrow enough for single tokes at low temperature, is more relevant for most readers than the amusing but trivial brandnamed container, "dug-out". Grouping this information under "chillum" would not be as good because not all chillums are one-hitters (though they should be).

The article should express that (1)having a screen in the one-hitter permits using sifted (uniform particle size) herb without "shooters" clogging the channel, and thereby achieving a lower burning temperature with health-related benefit; (2) adding on a flexible long drawtube, such as furnished on hookahs, makes it easier to see and light up more moderately; also gives smoke more time to cool down before inhalation, another health advantage.

Citations for these directives have been hard to find because researchers feared repercussions if their findings indicated there is any better, safer way to "break the law".) Editors should note that Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO nowhere forbids use of a wikiHow article as a reference, as three individuals have alleged. Rather such referencing actually helps prevent using WP as a how-to guide. Several wikiHow articles are now available to serve as sources on how to make, screen and use one-hitters, convert existing chillums to one-hitters, etc.-- including diagrams, which are themselves vital evidence that the low-dosage option exists (as an alternative to hot-burning "joints"). If those articles leave anything to be desired, Wikipedia editors are free to sign in on wikiHow, select a user-name, and edit and improve such articles to meet encyclopedic standards.Tokerdesigner (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got my merge argument backwards. "Not all chillums are one hitters" = true. "All one hitters are chillums" =true. This could be a sub-section of the chillum article. Most of the rest of what you are proposing to add is original research. You may be right about the reason there are few if any reliable sources, but unfortunately that does not change the fact that they aren't there. Although I had a real problem searching for this, most of the article I got were about baseball dugouts. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Something Tokerdesigner is neglecting to mention is that he writes those WikiHow edits himself, and then uses his wikihow entry as a reference when none were available to support his original research on Wikipedia, which is quite extensive. He admitted this on my talk page. It keeps the cleaner-uppers busy and it's a good argument to absolutely disallow wikiHow's as references! Mjpresson (talk) 03:18, 6 December 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.