Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Jenkem moral panic
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 Jenkem. Speedy close because deletion was not requested. —dgiestc 19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 2007 Jenkem moral panic
This article was split from the main jenkem article with little meaningful discussion. I see no reason why we should have separate articles for jenkem and the moral panic (which Wikipedia, in part, seems to have instigated) surrounding it. Many other drugs (real drugs, mind you) have caused significant moral panics, and we have no articles devoted to them - the societal issues are discussed, almost without exception, in the main article. This has also had the effect of decentralizing discussion on the topic, which is bad, since we really need a few more eyes on this issue. I propose that this article be deleted and its contents be merged back into jenkem. Skinwalker 18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note added after 3 comments were made: The moral panic material is terribly sourced, as many of the sources use the original jenkem article on wikipedia as a source themselves. This sort of irresponsible sourcing is the sort of thing that makes wikipedia look bad. I've also asked for input at the reliable sources noticeboard. I concur with Spryde and others that the vast majority of this material is unsuitable for inclusion in either article. Skinwalker 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Smerge into jenkem as little as possible and only from reliable sources. This appears to be an unencyclopedic attempt to document the spread of the meme, step by step. Unless credible secondary sources discuss these various steps they are not really encyclopedic, and have the air of advertising certain blogs or forums. --Dhartung | Talk 18:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I was one of two people who split the article. My reasoning was to get the original article back on track of actually discussing Jenkem instead of the hoax. This article is designed to go for the hoax. If this gets merged back in, I sincerely hope that a passing reference is made versus a full on cut and paste back in. I don't care if this article lives or dies. spryde | talk 18:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Spryde - appropriate weight of this in the main article (i.e., a short paragraph). delete the remainder. --Rocksanddirt 18:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment I'm confused, is the 'hoax' bit just about whether or not children are using it in America? Only it is really used in Africa I think- there's an article on it by the BBC, you can't get more RS than that. As to the TOTSE boy, I think he really did it, he just changed his story about it due to bullying or people being repulsed. But anyone feel free to message me with these mainly off-topic of the AfD disussion issues. As to this article-- obvious delete/merge content back into Jenkem.Merkinsmum 21:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- Merge back to the jenkem article. The lede of this article would be an ideal fit there, but the rest of it is just Proseline. Powers T 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
leave it as aits own article, it will grow bigger before it goes away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.191.134.55 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) — 75.191.134.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- 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.
