Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hash oil

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. Consensus was keep and clean up article. (non-admin closure) Monty ₈₄₅ 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hash oil[edit]

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

The article is not up to Wikipedia standards in terms of verified sources, lack of citation, and is a how-to-guide to producing illicit drugs Alchemist314 (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly states, "the point is not to train but to present facts" "facts must be verifiable". Someone's personal experience or claims made without supporting scientific evidence should not be included. Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted. I am speechless. If you are going to say something is toxic, cite a source. The article says "methanol is relatively safe" then goes on to say " methanol is toxic". Claims made about potency, methods and materials must be sourced. You can not say x contains impurities, then cite it. If you are going to list the physical properties of butane, source it. Finally, I have done extractions of plant pigments to run on HPLC, and guess what we used as the non-polar solvent, petrolium ethers!. Butane and all the other non-polar solvents will extract chlorophyll as well as lutein, xanthophyll, carotene and other pigments since they are also non-polar. This article makes no mention of even a separatory funnel. If this article is going to be about the clandestine manufacture of hash oil, then cite news reports or government reports. If you are going to talk about extractions and dangers of chemicals, please go to scifinder or get MSDS's and cite the sources. Wikipedia is not a blog, it is not erowid, and it is not an avenue for people to share their experience. It is an Encyclopedia, which I'm sorry, is not interested in your experiences or claims, unless they are published and verifiable by some kind of peer reviewed journal. By the way, I have been published as a chemist and if people are concerned about my credentials feel free to contact me and will provide them. If this article is properly cited when making claims then it should be kept, but if no one wants to go through the trouble, the state that is in now warrants deletion.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a scientist, a chemist to be exact. Any scientific writing must contain sources from peer reviewed journals. If the article is going to go in depth about the chemistry of extractions, unverified claims must be removed. If someone wants to go through the trouble of sourcing all the claims then go ahead, but the fact that this is an illicet drug, means there will be no sources. Wikipedia should not be a cookbook for those wishing to break the law. It should contain verified information from peer reviewed scientific journals so that readers who are not chemists or scientists can have faith that what they are reading is actually true. Alchemist314 (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know what you mean, "the fact that this is an illicit drug means there will be no sources." There are plenty of sources on how to produce hash oil, many of them reliable, and probably several in my library (I am an addiction psychologist). It seems to me the primary reason for deletion is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that there should be no information on the manufacture of illegal drugs in Wikipedia. Eauhomme (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different understanding of this nomination due to this quote: "Since 98 percent of this article contains unverified claims, it should be deleted." That is like saying that because 98% of a user's edits are non-controversial, none of the other 2% of edits are controversial. The argument IMO does not stand on its own two feet. It's not entirely WP:IDONTLIKEIT (maybe in part), it's simply a request to delete a page completely - instead of condensing the 2% that is cited - and thus remove an article from Wikipedia. I presume in good faith that the user simply did not consider giving the article a haircut that might be needed (though it's better to search for sources yourself and, failing to find them after a legitimate attempt, THEN remove them), and instead came here to get a consensus opinion on whether we should be keeping uncited information in the article. That opinion is not an AfD discussion, it's a discussion for an article's talk page. I do applaud the user for being bold and bringing this nomination, however; it did indirectly bring a heavily uncited article to our attention. CycloneGU (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no doubt that hash oil exists; its existence is easily documented in multiple reliable sources. AfD is not the appropriate venue for content disputes. To be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't edit the hell out of the article or even delete a large section, but the whole article should not be deleted. Kevin (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced general awfulness..--Mjpresson (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tag for sources. Seven-hundred-and-two-thousand Google hits for the exact phrase. Trust me when I say that in a haystack that big, there are three functional sources. Carrite (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Carrite (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then go find the sources and place them in the article by the claims.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deletion is not cleanup. And what do you mean up to wikipedia standards? Click on random article, and see what kind of "standard article" we have. This is better than most. WP:NOTCENSORED. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the paragraph I just wrote above.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is our editing policy to improve articles rather than deleting them. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and that is why the article has 7 days to be edited up to standards before any action is taken.Alchemist314 (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up all those "citation needed" tags and reduce the article to what can be referenced. Also, I think the nominator brought this here after a peek in the edit history - that is, unless he is the chemist who left the shouting comment about being a chemist. CycloneGU (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Hash oil is a legitimate psychoactive substance. If the article needs to be cleaned up, clean it up. Article quality is not a valid deletion rationale. Eauhomme (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it looks okay to me now. Deb (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see this get snow-keeped. There's no point in keeping it open for a week; clearly, the nomination was not in accordance with deletion policy and there's no chance there will be anything like a consensus to do a WP:IAR delete on it. Kevin (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no doubt in my mind that hash oil is a valid topic for inclusion in Wikipedia. The issue of poor sourcing, and unsupported opinion in the article is a reason for article improvement. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 28 April 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.