Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spots (cannabis)

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 keep without prejudice to renomination if further work doesn't happen on the article.. - Philippe 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spots (cannabis)

Spots (cannabis) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Already been merged once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spots. Same reasoning applies (that is, it reads like a how-to guide and doesn't have citations). Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP - As it reads, this article has met all the stipulated requests of the Nomination for Deletion, note the dates below.Barfnz (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --moof (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, great majority of the article is a how-to guide and the only other content, three sentences at the start, are pretty much a slang dicdef. If it warrants a mention anywhere, a line in Cannabis smoking would be sufficient (though that article itself needs work). -- Mithent (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Reply Do these reasons still apply? Article still needs work but has been cleaned up a lot. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

its a work in progress - give it time, as the article matures it will become more refined. if you hadn't deleted the old page, which was far superior, we wouldn't be in this position.

just because you find a particular behavior or topic offensive, does not give you the right to declare it not worthy of a wikipedia entry. this "encyclopedia" has the entries on the most trite of throw-away pop-culture, yet somehow spotting is not deserving of a page?

the how-to section has been removed and there is now multiple references. this negates the reasoning behind the AfD and therefore this article should be saved.

i think your efforts would be best directed elsewhere. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply The issue is not the quantity or "offensiveness" of the content, but the content itself. This is to say, the subject is not notable by the standards of WP:N(Wikipedia's guide to notability), and that the majority of the article reads like a "how-to guide"(See: WP:NOT#HOWTO). (But I hope you do not feel as if we're singling you out. There are few editors on Wikipedia who haven't had articles deleted. I, myself, have had a few of my created articles deleted, so I can understand why you so strongly object.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge as a one-line mention in Cannabis smoking (I think it used to be there but I deleted it as part of a massive overhaul of that article, which incidentally still needs a lot more overhaul if there are any volunteers...  ;p ) As far as I can tell, this is a real but very rare practice, certainly not notable enough for a separate article. And definitely, please no how-to guides. Oh, and also, it would be really fantastic if we could find a source, even if it's from High Times or something like that... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP this method of smoking is extremely popular here in NZ, even added some citations. 60.234.220.175 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP This method of smoking is NOT rare. Try looking in countries other than the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment: It looks like all three of those IPs are regestered to the same place in New Zealand. I'm not saying they're the same person(though they very well could be), but it appears that "Spotting" is a local thing. All of the Google searches I've done confirm this. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP you obviously have some petty vendetta against this article so you're stooping to insinuations that these edits are fraudulent. i find this offensive and pathetic. just because you are blissfully ignorant of things outside of your country's borders does not mean they do not exist. please feel free to IMPROVE the article, note that this does not mean deleting large sections of information! If bongs, joints and pipes get their own articles I cannot see a good reason why spots is not deserving of one as well. while the article needs work, it is definitely notable, how people expect to get quality articles when all they want to do is delete content i dont know. how many wiki articles started their existence complete with references and a 100% neutral point of view? - stuff-all i'm sure! Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're making it difficult to assume good faith, person behind the IP address 210.86.28.21. But I think you missed my point. I'll copy and paste my previous point in bold: it appears that "Spotting" is a local thing. In hindsight, I also believe that I was in error in only Googling it under the name of "Spots". Still, I do not believe that there is a lot to say about spotting that wouldn't easily fit under Cannabis smoking. To be honest, I don't believe there is any method of consuming cannabis that wouldn't fit in that article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

See my reply below. Now that I have an account I would thank you to cease these attempts to discredit my edits. Ars666 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, if I ever did any crazy things in college, not that I would, or would know anything about this... But a certain very responsible and drug-free adult might have once encountered this practice many years ago as a crazy college kid in the northeastern US, only it was introduced to him as "Hot Knives." (Gee, does that count as a reliable source? heh) So I'm pretty sure the practice exists the world over, although it's definitely not common in the US.

Anyway, even if we have reliable citations that it's a common practice in NZ, I still don't see it as meriting more than a sentence or two in Cannabis smoking. What else would you say about it, except to briefly describe it (takes one sentence) and say that it is popular in NZ? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Simply because spotting is mainly an australasian activity is no reason to delete it. Spotting is an important part of australasian cannabis culture, and many other regional activities have their own articles. 60.234.220.175 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• delete word-of-mouth lore. . No reputable references to prove notability. `'Míkka>t 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

reply: there are plenty of articles on topics that are undeniably notable that have weaker references than this one and no one is clamoring for their deletion, for example Black ops. one of the references on the Spots (cannabis) article is from a medical journal, how can you claim that is not reputable with a straight face? the reference that gives a rock song is also highly indicative of this activity being prevalent in society, a band is hardly likely to indirectly refer to a method of drug consumption that is not popular or does not exist. Ars666 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop smoking pot then we shall talk reason. Obviously you don't understand how wikipedia works. `'Míkka>t 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever points Mikka has made should be disregarded. Based on Wikipedia:NPA Wikipedia:CIVIL

uhh.. excuse me? so what was your opinion regarding the notability of medical journals? are you too rude to address the points i raised or just unable? your comments suggest you are quite out of touch with marijuana-related culture, what makes you qualified to judge whether a particular activity occurs within a community that you obviously have no contact with and appear to treat with disdain? i suggest you find another article on which to act out your petty power struggles as you have no business here. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The medical journal ref -- if we assume it's accurate, I don't really want to pay to get the article, but we'll assume good faith and assume it backs up your assertion -- will be very useful when you add a sentence or two to the Cannabis smoking article. I just don't see enough valid material here to warrant an article. If I were to delete everything in the article that fails WP:HOWTO, WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, and other policies, we'd be left with no more than two sentences, tops. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I went ahead and did just that. For every single piece of content I removed, I referenced the appropriate Wikipedia policy in the edit summary, so no whining. The article is now three sentences long and basically covers the entire topic from an encyclopedic standpoint. Good merge candidate, you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

i am against the merge as the content will only be deleted like before, it is quite obvious that you are not at all interested in keeping this information available on wikipedia. i am reverting the article because the previous content is a WORK IN PROGRESS - the discussion page openly states this, readily acknowledges the articles shortcomings and asks for others to contribute. as i have pointed out before, other wikipedia articles are allowed to exist without references to allow the article to develop; and as stated before, if Joints and Bongs are worthy of articles separate from Cannabis smoking then spotting is entitled to its own page too. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I am skeptical about the joint and bong article too. Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Maybe those articles should be merged/deleted too. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

since you arent actually involved in marijuana culture, i fail to see why you should be the one to determine whether these methods (that play a large role in the culture surrounding cannabis) deserve pages or not? you should stick to commenting on and editing articles that you are actually knowledgeable about, rather than using wikipedia as a vehicle for you to attempt to marginalize drug culture. if you are a regular editor on the cannabis smoking article, no wonder its in such a poor state. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

These IPs are making unfounded assumptions and I am effing sick of it. They just assume that people who disagree with them don't know anything about the topic. What gave you that idea?! Hey, I know: Since these IPs aren't involved in the marijuana culture (just as valid for me to assume that about them as for them to assume that about me) and since they also are actually trained cats (hey, why not, since we are making things up about people that we don't know, they might as well be trained cats!), they should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia does have a strict "No Trained Cats" policy. --Jaysweet (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded assumptions? taken from the discussion above: "Hypothetically, if I ever did any crazy things in college, not that I would, or would know anything about this... But a certain very responsible and drug-free adult might have once encountered this practice many years ago as a crazy college kid in the northeastern US, only it was introduced to him as "Hot Knives.. To any reasonable person you have just said that while you may have dabbled with weed many years ago, you are now 'responsible and drug free'. From this I infer you have little-to-no contact with drug culture, and definitely no contact with the culture surrounding spotting in New Zealand. Ars666 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never met a weed smoker in new zealand who is not completely aware and accustomed to having spots. The practice is also known the world over by various names such as 'hot knives', 'blades' etc. This is hardly an obscure method of consumption. Even if spotting was practiced by a VERY limited number of people, according to WP:UNDUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". Going by this guideline, spots sound like a perfect candidate for their own page. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Merge insufficient amount of encyclopedic information to warrant a separate article. Mukadderat (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• KEEP Massively popular within New Zealand. Definatly is "worthly of notice."
• Delete, nn drugcruft. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep having read the previous incarnation of this article, there is definitely enough "encyclopedic content" available to make this article good if given the chance. Wakandas_black_panther, Jaysweet & Míkka seem determined to gut this article of any content and are clearly acting in bad faith Dirtyfilthy (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Merge We already have a redirect for Hot knife (smoking). Spots and spotting should also redirect to a separate section within the Cannabis smoking article. This information is perfectly encyclopaedic. Karenjc 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• DEFINATELY KEEP This article has existed in various forms for years and been deleted over the years for frivilous reasons each time. Now the article is consice, lists references and is free from opinionation. It is also culturally significant in New Zealand, seen in the media and in widespread colloqueal use in New Zealand vocabulary. It is absurd that people with no knowledge of New Zealand culture can be considered authoritarian enough to vouch for deletion of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.159.215 (talk) 18:57, April 20, 2008 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else get that "sockpuppet/meatpuppet" feeling? If you don't, you should run though all of these IPs' and a few of these usernames' contribution lists. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: While that is a valid query, are you going to re-evaluate the quality of the article now? I have put a significant amount of work into this.Dirtyfilthy (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply I will, indeed. You may read it below. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply-to: Black Panther: I am ABSOLUTELY FED UP with you insinuating my edits are fraudulent because I have (previously) chosen to not sign up for an account and thus use my IP address as an identifier. In my opinion, using my static IP address as an identifier is actually more honest than hiding behind some anonymous alias. Now I have an account so you can shove those accusations up your rear entrance. Cheers. Ars666 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply: Chill. This is a discussion, not a boxing match. I believe that some of these opinions should be taken with a grain of salt because the IPs and users posting them have made very little to no edits in articles other than this page and Spots (cannabis). This makes it look like they are here only to defend this article. If any of them are you behind other IPs or usernames, and I'm not saying for sure they are, that would make them sockpuppets. If they are other people that you brought here simply to protest, that would make them meatpuppets. If they are neither, that would make them unbelievable coincidences. Either way, my purpose isn't to upset you, or anyone else, and I apologize if I have. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I feel that if this article is merged it will just get destroyed/gutted again, as happened last time (see "I think it used to be there but I deleted it as part of a massive overhaul of that article" - Jaysweet above ). Left alone this article has the potential to improve even further. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:N, (including actual books!) see article refs. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reevaluation The article has been edited extensively, and many changes have taken place. Because of this, I will reevaluate it based on its three previous issues: WP:HOWTO, WP:CITE, and WP:N.

• First off, the article no longer reads like a how-to guide. This problem is solved.
• Secondly, the citations. They're there, but are they reliable, and how do they handle the subject of Spotting? I will review them, one-by-one:
  • One is a website about being spiritual and mental pleasure. It is a general article about consuming cannabis, where Spotting is given one paragraph under what would be a level three header.
  • Two, three, four, and five are from drug-centered books which I do not have current access to. I will assume they are one-to-two page descriptions on the subject, at most.
  • Six looks like some sort of dictionary. It gives this definition of Spotting two sentences.
  • Three Looks like some sort of NZ travel guide. It gives Spotting about a paragraph under a level three header.
  • Eight is the exact same citation as four.
  • Nine is a health website article about cannabis in general. It gives spotting a two sentence mention, as well, under no particular headers.
  • Ten Is a NZ government article. It say this about spotting: "Possession of instruments (Found with a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife); 1 year and/or $500 fine."
  • Eleven is a lyrics site that appears to reference spotting in the lyrics.
  • Twelve is a particularly un-notable-looking health-related website, with a general cannabis article. Spotting is mentioned in one bullet, because it may be slightly more unhealthy than other methods(?).
  • Thirteen Looks like a New Zealand pro-cannabis website. The article is about using vaporizers and spotting, because it's more healthy. (Wait, I thought it was LESS healthy, according to Twelve?) Most of the already-small article is about the vaporizers.
  • Fourteen is another magazine which I do not have access to. It appears to be about bongs, though.
  • Fifteen and Sixteen are referencing the dangers of inhaling burned plastic vapors.
• Thirdly, the notability. Wikipedia usually treats a subject with the same level of importance that its citations give it. Going by these references, Spotting is worthy of mention in a larger article about consuming cannabis, and possibly also in the New Zealand article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think that the fact there ARE multiple references, from multiple sources both online and off, is plenty of proof that the activity is widespread when you consider its underground nature. The NZ Police website refers to a 'spotting knife' this implies that, at the very least, all trained NZ Police officers are aware of the activity among marijuana users. While there should definitely be a mention of spotting on the cannabis smoking article, having it as the sole location of information regarding spotting will have a stifling effect on any future content, as detailed information would be considered extraneous in the context of that article. Also according to WP:UNDUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". Ars666 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All of the sources give it a very brief mention, most of them in larger articles about consuming cannabis. I believe Wikipedia should follow the same guideline. And your quote from WP:UNDUE is taken out of context. WP:UNDUE is about not presenting a minority idea or activity with the same weight as much larger ideas. (To give both joints and spots four paragraphs would be undue, because joints are far more popular an idea.) By this, it is a perfect candidate to be in a larger article. Once this discussion is closed, I plan to improve the Cannabis smoking article to show this. (As well as Spots, if it isn't deleted or merged.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is you who is having difficulty interpreting WP:UNDUE. It clearly states that minority viewpoints are entitled to their own articles. If we were instead trying to take over the Cannabis smoking article and claim that spotting was the most prominent and popular method of consumption, then your point would be valid. Ars666 (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand "But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant", so it is perfectly appropriate for spots to have it's own article, and go into great depth on the subject, as long as it's relative popularity is mentioned Dirtyfilthy (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What does what you just quoted have to do with a less-notable subject having its own article? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply while I realise this is a bit WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I think you are trying to hold this article to a far higher standard than other marijuana articles.. The Cannabis smoking article itself only has four references, many of which are only tangential to the main subject. As said before article will improve given half the chance, I've only had a day. Nonetheless I will head to the library tonight and try and find some better references. I think it is pretty harsh to discount the book references out of hand. - Dirtyfilthy (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I hold all articles to the same standards: The standards of Wikipedia. I don't discredit the paper citations, but none of them have a title including "Spotting". It makes me believe("believe", not "know") that the books only give Spotting a small mention, much like in the web-based citations. If you can find a book at the library called "Spotting" or "Hot Knives" or the like that is more than 300 pages, I will withdraw my nomination, and leave it to the other editors to decide. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. Theres got to be hundreds (if not thousands) of articles whose notability is totally unquestioned that don't have a 300+ page book dedicated to the topic. Since when did the rules of wikipedia require a 300 page book to be written about a topic for it to have its own page? While I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I would like to know why you decided to single out the spotting article when there are 3 separate articles on marijuana pipes (Bowl (smoking), Chillum (pipe) and Dugout (smoking), all of which have less (and weaker, in my opinion) references than this spotting article. If you truly hold all articles to the same standards, why have you not nominated these articles for deletion or even commented on their discussion page as to their innappropriateness(in your opinion)? You have had plenty of time to do so, as they have been up on wikipedia for some time now, and each one is linked from the Cannabis smoking article. It seems as though you are only really interested in seeing that this new article (actually an old one that you have killed off before) is deleted. How do you reconcile this behavior with your claim to hold all pages to the same standard? If this was truly the case shouldn't you now be leaving the spotting page alone and taking up your beef with the other pages mentioned above? This suggests to me that you have lost objectivity and that getting this spotting page deleted has become a personal crusade for you. Ars666 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable last reply You're making it impossibly hard to remain civil, Arse666. I've made my side of the argument very clear, and do not intent to play "Uh-huh!" "Uh-uh!" all day with you. If you've any more boo-hoo complains, file them with the administrator who closes this discussion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦

---

Clarification on my previous entry dated 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC). I would just like to make it clear that I was not trying to say that this article should be kept because the Bowl (smoking), Chillum (pipe) and Dugout (smoking) articles exist. My intention was to highlight what I feel are inconsistencies between what Wakandas black panther is saying and what their past actions (or lack of) suggest. Ars666 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Please see the article's talk page for full comments from me. I strongly stand by my original gutting of the article, as I think the new post-gutting article is a major improvement, and I doubt it would have ever happened without cutting all the crap from the original. As it stands now, the article is no longer harmful to Wikipedia. I am still skeptical whether the topic is noteworthy enough for a whole separate article, but I don't feel strongly about it anymore since the improvements. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:52, 21 April 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.