Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chocolate Thai (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Cannabis, where information from Chocolate Thai has been merged. (per WP:AN discussion). - auburnpilot talk 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Thai

Chocolate Thai (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is unverifiable, original research with no reliable sources. Zenwhat (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC) In the past AfD discussion, there were only two participants. If the article is "notable," please cite a source. It's entirely possible it may be an urban myth. Zenwhat (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Me and Pundit settled the matter about the references. We both agreed on a merge. The information in this article has been merged into the main article on Cannabis. [1] So, this issue appears to be resolved with 100% consensus and any admin reading this page simply needs to delete Chocolate Thai. The only "keep" vote below is based on arguments made by Pundit, which she has since withdrawn, changing her vote from keep to merge. Zenwhat (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 :My change of vote is just for myself. All other editors who wish to change their view can do so by making it explicit here, let's not assume what their motives or influences were. Pundit|utter 18:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Zenwhat, what do you mean by saying that "information in this article has been merged into the main article on Cannabis"? Not a single sentence went through (not to mention saying about the artist's name or giving the references to the magazine. Pundit|utter 04:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

  Only now have I incorporated some of the info. It could be considered for other strains as well (in cases where it can be succinct and does not require a separate entry). Pundit|utter 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability over a very long period of time, making it seem highly unlikely notability can be established. Delete as non-notable stoner-cruft. TheBilly (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Although I know barely anything about cannabis, a short google search brought hundreds of results, of which I incorporated a couple into the article. Apparently, the thing is a real phenomenon and if cannabis strains are encyclopedic, this one should be as well (especially because it, seemingly, is really known in this subculture). Pundit|utter 15:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • That is an argument to avoid, since google results are meaningless if the current article content is unreliable. Our standards are WP:V not whatever comes up in an arbitrary google search. You need to read WP:ATA#Google_test. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Surprisingly, I am familiar with this rule. However, while not being a proof of anything, google results definitely are an indicator. In this case, you have close to 6 thousand hits for "Chocolate Thai", marijuaha, which shows at least that the term is used. Although Urban Dictionary probably is not the best reference, but there are also pages with parental advisory, etc. For slang/drugs vocabulary I doubt if there are any prime peer-reviewed academic publications to rely on. Pundit|utter 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge after some consideration and ardent disputes with Zenwhat I still think the topic is notable, but merging will not do any harm, and it is unlikely that the article will be significantly expanded just because of the nature of this topic. Pundit|utter 17:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I believe it to be poor manner to start another AfD 3 weeks after the first one was resolved, although I agree that the original one should probably have been extended, rather than closed with only 2 people voting. Nevertheless, it definitely is bad style not to inform them at least, not to mention transferring their votes here (as this voting, if it is to have any sense after such a short period, could be treated as the previous one's extension).Pundit|utter 15:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up Comment. I agree I should've notified the above two. I forgot. I didn't notice it was only three weeks ago As for copying the past votes, I don't believe that's done generally, as there's usually a completely new vote and anyone can click the link above to see the past votes. Zenwhat (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. References were inserted after nomination. That Chocolate Thai is the strain's "street name" does not in any way affect the strain's relevance. If anything, the page could be moved to a more "scientific" name. Also, I second every comment by Pundit above. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 16:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - From what I am seeing, there is not a lot of independent sourcework, but there may be enough to include a mention in another article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I have changed my mind from the previous discussion. ALL of the sources currently cited are unreliable, from the likes of Urban Dictionary and similarly unreliable publications. I have no problem with a good article being created at a later date, but this version and all of its history would be a good riddance. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment. That's my main point. If anyone can find a valid citation for the term, please present it. If anyone can't, there is no reason to keep this article. I looked myself and, as you said, it's all just urban dictionary and blogs. Zenwhat (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge We have a list of slang article and this can be added there. Provided there are reliable sources. -- Cat ^chi? 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge what can be surced form reliable sources (very little) and redirect Guy (Help!) 16:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pundit, I'm glad to see you come around. However, proposing keep, delete, or merge because "It doesn't do any harm" is a specific argument to avoid in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#It doesn't do any harm.

With that said, I think delete\merge would be a good idea too.

Listing strains of marijuana would be something great to add to Wikipedia and while Wikipedia is Wikipedia not a dictionary for slang, I do agree that the widespread perception of cannabis strains -- even if they're urban legends, like chocolate thai, blueberry thai, and purple haze -- they're a large enough cultural phenomenon to warrant, but it's not up on Cannabis.

So, what do you all think about this ? Zenwhat (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

tangential remark I have no real opinion on the underlying debate here (checked it out from curiosity after a brouhaha on one of the ref desks) but I just want to point out that the "arguments to avoid" thing is only an essay. Perfectly reasonable to use it as a shorthand link to arguments you don't want to repeat. The unfortunate thing is that some editors think it's some sort of policy or guideline, which it isn't at all. It's a "read it and see if you agree or not" kind of thing. I agree with some of it, sharply disagree with some other parts. --Trovatore (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Indeed I made my argument too simple and imprecise. What I'm saying is that leaving this information on Chocolate Thai not only will do no harm, but also will provide useful and interesting information. I myself, for that matter, have not known about this topic at all and was really glad to learn (which is one of the reasons why I find Wikipedia fascinating). Your edit is a good idea, listing these strains in cannabis may be a good way of merge. Pundit|utter 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Dubious notability, the references are ridiculous and the prose is bloated and anecdotal. Now I'm off to wooop chicken with Miss Emma, PLUR everyone. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, articles on neologisms should be avoided. Information on the substance described by the neologism can be adequately covered in Cannabis. [[Guest9999 (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2008 (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.