Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spliff politics

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 No Consensus The main argument for deletion is lack of sources. Several have been suggested during the AfD, but no one has stated that those sources support the current content of the artilce, and no one has actually added them to the article. Let's hope this will be improved in the near future. DES (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spliff politics

Spliff politics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Entire article reads like original research, delete as per WP:NOT#OR. Mmoneypenny 13:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NOR, or possibly just from lack of reliable mainstream sources, but I am wondering if it possible to get a reliable, mainstream source that covers marijuana culture? Isn't this kind of a fringe topic to begin with? More than anything, I am struck by what an exceptionally well-done article this is in other ways. Good graphics, good writing, good maintenance (apparently mostly by User:Thisnamestaken). However this AfD debate turns out, good job.  :) Deltopia 13:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't smoke pot myself and I have heard of this concept, the 'politics' of smoking cannabis, from a friend of mine who does. This may actually be notable, but it's WP:V that's the problem here. If we could try Googling for sources that may be helpful but probably not due to likely lack of WP:RS.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Puff, puff, delete. Well-written but not sourced from any reliable sources. Deltopia is correct that the majority of mainstream media won't give feature coverage to most marijuana-related topics, making this hard to cite well enough for an encyclopedia article. This appears to be based utterly on someone's original research for those "etiquette" websites. In the end this isn't about facts and figures but about personal attitudes, which vary too widely among tens of millions of users for any generalizations like those in the article to have any broad validity. I'm afraid it's just not encyclopedic material. In the end it's not "politics" anyhow, just "ethics" of group behavior, so if WP:ATT sources existed this would need retitling. Barno 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have heard the term referred to as 'the politics of' smoking cannabis - it should probably exist under a title with the word 'politics' in it, if it can be sourced, as we refer to articles by their most common name generally speaking, but I doubt it can be sourced.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting (and as noted above, well written), but not worth more than a comment in Cannabis (drug), Cannabis smoking, Joint (cannabis) or some other of those x-amount of articles about ganja. number29(Talk) 17:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's a source that deals with this subject, even though it doesn't support most of this article's contents: Don H. Zimmerman and D. Lawrence Wieder (December 1977). "You Can't Help But Get Stoned: Notes on the Social Organization of Marijuana Smoking". Social Problems 25 (2): 198–207.  Uncle G 19:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Rewrite as another article to take account of the source found by UncleG, (who has as usual my admiration for such things) and probably other work. I think a better title might be Marijuana etiquette, with a redirect. The Cannabis smoking article is only about the technology.
The Social Problems article is from 1977, and the only earlier reference it cites is Sherri Cavan, Hippies of the Haight 1972; from Web of Science , JSTOR, and Google Scholar , the only academic papers to cite it are Maynard DW, Social-order and Plea Barganing in the Courtroom" in "Sociological Quarterly" 24 (2): 233-251 1983, and "The Social Organization of Deviants" Joel Best; David F. Luckenbill Social Problems, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Oct., 1980), pp. 14-31. JSTOR Stable URL: [1] --neither seem relevant to this facet.
My memory is that such things were widely written about with Participant observation methodology in the counter-cultural papers of the period. I do not think they are indexed; I do not think they are online--there might be problems tracking down the copyright holders. There are also books listed as "related" on Google Scholar; most are general, but the relevant ones seem to be: Marihuana Users and Drug Subcultures BD Johnson - 1973 - Wiley; The Marijuana Smokers E Goode - 1970 - Basic Books; The Disreputable Pleasures-- J Hagan - 1977 - McGraw-Hill ; Ryerson; The Black Candle EF Murphy - 1973 - Coles Pub. Co., & there are a number of articles citing them listed in GS. I have a pdf copy of the Zimmerman article. DGG 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but with the understanding that the article needs to be sourced. Original research is a concern here and I raised it as a WP:PROD, shortly after it was written. I have smoked this product (but obviously never inhaled) and with changing attitudes and legislation (Netherlands and UK), it may well be necessary to discuss "ganjaquette". A single writer itsn't a bad thing per say and it doesn't appear to have any political motives. Neither does it appear to have been vandalised. The first Spliff politics disappeared in a puff with a speedy delete months ago, but was no where near as detailed as this. It is well written, I googled some of the most eloquent sentences and none of it seems plagerised. Sourcing is a requirement on Wikipedia, but to enter an Afd, move to delete and walk away strikes me as sloppy editing, if not Afdtrolling. If we have time to read Afd, we surely have time to constructively edit the articles we comment on. I will try and source some of its contents over the weekend and hope other editors will to. Mike33 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up. There is both academic study and cultural references for this (watch Human Traffic). John Vandenberg 07:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 07:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - As I said earlier, I always felt this was a notable concept going on what I've heard about it IRL. If anyone wants to significantly rework it to meet Wikipedia's standards, then keep, otherwise delete.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 08:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment from nominator. My argument is not that this article is not written in proper English, nor that the pictures are inappropriate, nor that the article has been subject to vandalism, because I appreciate these are not reasons for deleting an article. I am also not saying that having one main editor (Thisnamestaken) is a bad thing because this is how many/all articles here start out and the article is well written. I am saying that the entire article, from start to finish reads like original research, interspersed with a "How to" guide (e.g. "If someone rolls or passes you a duff joint (eg, too tight, too loose, to wet, keeps going out) it is best to quietly mention the deplorability of the joint to the roller...") I appreciate that "Spliff politics" may exist, that it may vary by city/region/country, with spliffs being passed anti-clockwise in the Southern and clockwise in the Northern hemispheres, respectively, much like the Coriolis effect. However, I listed this article for deletion because I could not see anything worth saving perhaps other than the word "Spliff politics". I know that the article has seen a lot of work, but WP:EFFORT is not good enough. Lastly, thanks to Uncle G for scrounging out the Social Problems article, which I too have downloaded and will have a look at after the weekend. Mmoneypenny 09:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • More sources:
    • There's a list of prescriptive rules of "ganja etiquette" in Arooka (Arooka. James Bong's Ultimate SpyGuide to Marijuana. Free World Press, 140–141. ISBN 0973892803. ).
    • There's some discussion of group smoking etiquette in Clinard+Quinney (Marshall Barron Clinard and Richard Quinney (1973). Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Incorporated, 104. ).
    • Abernethy discusses the psychological reasons for marijuana smokers to form rings when smoking (Francis Edward Abernethy (1976). What's Going On? (in Modern Texas Folklore). Encino Press, 104–105. ).
    • Natarajan+Hough cite some research into adolescent marijuana use and touch upon the common form of "passing around the spliff" (Mangai Natarajan and Michael Hough (2000). Illegal Drug Markets: From Research to Prevention Policy. Criminal Justice Press, 64–65. ISBN 1881798259. ).
    • Golub discusses the "circular nature" of both the bong and cigarette rituals, "blunt chasing", and the idea of taking a few puffs and then passing along as means of intake control (Andrew Lang Golub (2006). The Cultural/Subcultural Contexts of Marijuana Use at the Turn of the Twenty-First Century. Haworth Press, 29,57,71–72,94–95. ISBN 078903204X. ).
  • Please read and discuss. Uncle G 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep with the proviso that the article is cleaned up and properly sourced. (And I'm sure sources abound; others have listed some, and I suspect High Times and the like have published material on marijuana smoking etiquette.) —Psychonaut 21:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. No-one's added any sources; we've just been faffing around with monkey business on the AfD instead. I think instead of outright deletion, we could possibly stubify this and add the sources as "further reading" - the closer of this AfD may wish to consider this as an option.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 17:55, 2 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.