Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musicians associated with cannabis use

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. Mailer Diablo 13:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Musicians associated with cannabis use

I don't think there's any way to make this list in conformity with WP:NPOV or WP:V especially given the subjective nature of "associated with". Moreover, there is absolutely no way to make it comprehensive and complete given that countless (and I really mean countless) groups have in some way promoted marijuana or associated with it whatever that means. The prod was removed by the creator with this friendly reply to me. Actually I think the solution is to simply say that there is a list too long to give of musicians who have openly stated that they smoke. Pascal.Tesson 04:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination - seems subjective and list-cruftish to me also. If cannabis use by a particular musician is documented, it can always be mentioned on the individual musician pages. Fabricationary 04:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Intersesting, however, I feel that the matter would've been better discussed on the talk page before you start proposing deletion. The fact of the matter is, you made no suggestions and moved immediately to deletion. And your initial message to me was none too friendly either, please be in the right before you criticize my wrongs. ReverendG 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Given the above points, however, I agree, although I still believe that the article talk pages should be used before the deletion proceedings begin.
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 05:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending sources being introduced. Till then I think it should be tagged rather then going AfD. Agne 05:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Much more useful article/list would be Musicians not associated with cannabis use. Medtopic 05:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    I'd have to disagree with you there, as it's basically the opposite of this list.--Andeh 06:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • 'Twas a joke. Medtopic 07:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not independently relevant, lacking in sources and almost completely impossible to source reliably. Dopecruft. JFW | T@lk 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a mere list with no sources probably manages to break all policies. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 10:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a list that I can see no value in...it's just a list that you would find in a gossip magazine, which is what Wikipedia is not --Skully Collins Review Me! Please? 10:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought that all musicians were associated with cannabis :-) Potentially infinite list. Ekajati 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete bah Adam Sandler isn't even on here. Seriously though I can't ever see this list being complete or passing WP:V. Whispering 17:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 17:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I have no problem with a list even a potentially infinite one, but associated with is so squirrelly a phraseology that those who campaign against it, those who "didn't inhale" and down-right stoners all seem to fit in. Carlossuarez46 17:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ekajati said exactly what was the first thing that came to my mind. Agent 86 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dope-lete per WP:V. Did the originating editor know much about the only-verbally-documented history of jazz, or of blues, or the more WP:RS-documented history of reggae or even rock'n'roll? The category is too vague to be documentable, and any well-defined retitling would (as noted in earlier comments) lead to a list too long to maintain and have users load. Barno 00:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Skully Collins. Wikipedia is not People Magazine. Mikeeilbacher 00:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unsourced, unverifiable, and potentially unmaintainable. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, not to mention the obvious: isn't every musician involved with the cronic? I joke, I joke...-Colonial One 14:20, 29 July 2006 (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.