Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shake (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. A slim (or "shaky") consensus. Instances of usage of the term are not really enough to sustain an article. Complete lack of WP:V sources after 3 years (!!!) is really a nail in its coughin'. (sorry). Pigman☿ 03:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shake (cannabis)[edit]

The article cites no sources and references a slang term that is not by itself notable. To use an example: Blunt (cigar) is a slang term, but the idea of a "marijuana cigar" is notable enough to have its own article. "Marijuana crumbs", however, are not notable, just as there is no article on Cookie crumbs, Dirty plate, or Soiled underwear. The fact that there is a slang term for this does not make it notable, per Wikipedia is not a dictionary for slang. Zenwhat (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak to moderate keep I found it used at http://www.wamm.org/howtouse.htm and plenty of places that probably won't pass wp:rs, but this is a pretty old term (don't ask how I know....) and has survived the test of time. It is used as a semi-legal term (http://peterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=824113&auth=GALEN+EAGLE and http://cannabismd.org/reports/rosenthal10.php) as a description for a type of marijuana in more than a few legal and medical cases. I am sure it has a fair amount of cultural references in movies and such, although finding them might be difficult as it likely isn't the main theme of any. At worst, move to wikictionary. Personally, I would say recruit someone to clean it up, which is a reason to improve instead of delete. The references to potentcy of the different kinds of shake look like original research but could easily be removed. Pharmboy (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your proposal to move it to wiktionary, and your points above. Zenwhat (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I agree that this may possibly serve as a "dictionary definition", I do not have any opinion on the move to Wiktionary because I do not know what their standards are there. For Wikipedia this does not meet WP:V at all. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Merge of Delete - per WP:DICT. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It's a load of original research at the moment, but as pointed out by Pharmboy this term has been used to describe this phenomenon in possibly reliable sources, so I dunno... it's beyond a dicdef though, that's for sure.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 00:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems this is more a problem with the current status of an article vs what the article really is about. If the article is not up to quality standards it should be tagged and edited to become proper, not deleted. Also, Wikipedia to my understanding is supposed to be an encyclopedia of all knowledge and any encyclopedia specifically on Marijuana consumption would certainly include an article on shake. Furthermore, dictionary definitions are short and this article is already a page long. Even if this article does have some specific problems that the Wiki process is supposed to correct over time I believe that deleting this article would lower the overall quality of Wikipedia and move it away from it's larger focus as a whole to share the sum of human knowledge. :wq Triddle (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from WP:DICTIONARY: Wikipedia articles are not dictionary articles, are not whole dictionaries, and are not slang and usage guides. This article is long because it details several definitions instead of just one. I am not advocating the obliteration of this article, just that it merge it to the appropriate article (if there is one). LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to point out that the use of the term in many court cases alone is likely enough to be considered notable, as it is used as a LEGAL term. The article doesn't properly document this, but the links above would be potential citations, and many more can be found. Pharmboy (talk) 17:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article as it is is unsourced, unverifiable and shows no evidence of notability due to the complete lack of secondary sources (let alone significant coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources). The lack of sourcing makes it likely that the article is completely original research and even if evidence is found that the topic is notable the article would have to be completely rewritten around the appropriate sources. Additionally Wikipedia is not a dictionary and articles on neologisms should generally be avoided. [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
very weak keep Badly needs referencing to reliable sources, reads very much like original research - authors must have material which they used for reference which they should share - transcripts of specific court cases as Pharmboy suggests, and even drug culture publications would be acceptable for an article of this nature. Question is, can the authors motivate themselves to finish the job? Riversider2008 (talk) 12:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - from the huge amount of the info and google searches the topic seems notable. The article is interesting in itself. Still, as I do not have bandwidth to do real research about cannabis culture and improve the article once I have sources, and the article in current stage (although informative) is a bit ungrounded, I am pretty weak in my vote. Pundit|utter 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, the entire article is completely unsourced, and has been outstanding as such for at least 13+ months now. There is nothing to salvage here. RFerreira (talk) 05:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic is not notable enough for an own article. Shake isn't a cannabis product or preparation but drawdown. --mms (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with a redirect to cannabis Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:03, 9 January 2008 (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.