Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan Kush

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 delete without prejudice, pending reliable sources. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Afghan Kush

Afghan Kush (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced and non-notable strain of cannabis -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article is unsourced, but that's too bad because there are many sources out there. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Keep all. Items in the series of cannabis strains are listed in AFD separately, but I will write only once that I choose to keep them all. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
    • To avoid confusion, please do not !vote twice in deletion discussions. RFerreira 07:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete if it is unsourced and cannot be fixed then it should be erased plain and simple Coccyx Bloccyx 19:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unsourced, no evidence of notability. Hal peridol 00:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, doens't seem to meet the deletion criteria. Yes, it is unsourced, but then again, most Wikipedia articles are, and it should be tagged and eventually sourced, not deleted. Cannabis is a very notable subject, and to have a good coverage of the subject, why not have articles on the different types of cannabis? 96T 12:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Response - Most of the "information" on the pages I nominated is unsourced. If sources can be found then they should stay, but I don't think there's enough information to warrant separate articles. Why not a single List of Cannabis Strains article that contains all the (properly sourced) bits of information? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Content which cannot be verified through non-trivial reliable sources most certainly can and should be removed (without prejudice if said sources can be located at a later date). RFerreira 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


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.