Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cherry stoner

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. NawlinWiki 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cherry stoner

Cherry stoner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recreation of deleted PROD - procedural nom. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Xiaphias 19:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Not anything that has any place in wikipedia. One may make an argument for wikitionary but even that is weak. It's true place is in an urban dictionary. Lorangriel 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This term is still used, hence the PageRank. I know of at least three people who use it, and at least one person who cultivates it. 82.163.145.49 16:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Indeed, there is plenty of information about this on Google. Not quite sure why it's up for deletion, perhaps it's a localized topic. s p u n k o 2 0 1 0 16:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A Google search for 'cherry stoner' produces a list of instruments used to remove the pits of cherries. Even UrbanDictionary doesn't have an entry on 'cherry stoner'. Surely non-notable. Ratiocinate 16:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This article does need massive improvement, but I have heard the word used and it is present within the English lexicon. It is as notable as, say, skunk_weed which has it's own article. Only difference being that Cherry Cannabis is not as widely available as far as I know. 82.163.191.197 20:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Could be good with some effort, no reason to del. Above IP user has a point. Veryvulgar 20:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

— Veryvulgar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete, no evidence that this term is widely used. SparsityProblem 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I say it stays, at the very least we turn it into an article on Rosaecidae as opposed to just cherry stoners.82.163.35.144 10:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• KEEP. Why is this up for deletion? Perhaps someone is anti-drugs. LEROYBOSEEVUS 13:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

— LEROYBOSEEVUS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Comment: Please limit the discussion to content, not people. SparsityProblem 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: Three of the KEEP votes are all from the same IP range, presumably the same person. SparsityProblem 16:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition, Spunko2010 has falsified a signature timestamp (since reverted), similar to the IP user's action of editing signatures so as to appear from different IP ranges.Ratiocinate 16:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Oh, how astute of you. 82.163.37.107 19:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. Also, LEROYBOSEEVUS's only user-space contributions are to comment on this AfD. SparsityProblem 20:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, else delete - I am unconvinced that the topic is notable or even wide enough to be covered in an article on its own. I might, however, support the merging of its content into some related article, if it were done carefully with discussion on the talk page of to wherever it would then be moved. Content merging is often preferable when applicable. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 03:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non notable term, no google of this. All hits seem to point to a kitchen tool as previously noted. Appears to be a joke not a legitimate attempt at article.Horrorshowj 03:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Now that IP users are allowed to have their say(!), I must say I think this article has potential. In its current state, you're right, it's terrible and lacking in sources, citations and the like. However, I have managed to find several forums on the 'net detailing Roasaecidae and "cherry stoning" - notability right there. 213.218.224.238 10:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Right where? All you did for the first is misspell the name of the Rose Family. Rosaceae Nothing under your spelling anywhere. The second still yields nothing pertinent. Horrorshowj 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Net forums are not considered reliable sources and should not be used. Ratiocinate 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete stupid neologism. SalaSkan 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete "Cherry Cannabis" gets two Google hits. "cherry stoning" cannabis gets zero. Roasaecidae isn't even a word (did you mean Rosaceae, the plants commonly known as roses?). The one "source" in the article is a link to a forum posting asking "Are cherry flavored papers any good?" This is a neologism or possibly a hoax. — Scientizzle 15:39, 11 July 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.