Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weedpunk

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. No reliable evidence that such a subgenre actually exists. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weedpunk

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

Appears to be a neologism, or at best some sort of original research; none of the cite sources even includes the term "weedpunk". This may make an interesting essay on punk subcultures, but I see no evidence that it belongs in wikipedia. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PS. This article may qualify for speedy deletion as nonsense per WP:CSD#G1; see the discussion at User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Weedpunk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete - None of the given references make any mention of Weedpunk and a Google search gives a total of 8 hits, none of which give any support of this being a literary genre. I rather suspect this is a hoax. - Galloglass 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete neologism is putting it kindly. [8 Google hits], most seem unrelated. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article should be given more time to accurately reference its sources. "Weed Punk" was definitely a staple of pulp-era cheap follow ups to cyberpunk as most sci-fi enthusiasts (G-d knows there are a few on here!) will remember, which has a proper definition on Wikipedia. Most of the creative output was cheap magazines which makes proper sources hard to find. The article is well written and interesting, probably worth keeping around until we can get more research done into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.110.124 (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2008
• Delete as unverifiable (but I don't believe it's a speedy candidate under G1). — Satori Son 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• (e/c) Delete as OR. No meaningful ghits for either “weedpunk” or “weed punk.” It does not, however, meet G1 (an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content). —Travis^talk 14:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Definitely not a candidate for speedy deletion. However, the article does need to be improved with more sources. As even today most common pulp fiction magazines and comics are hard to find, it goes doubly so for an underground counterculture movement which is anti-government in its message. Perhaps the cannabis museum will eventually be able to find more sources from the 1960s and 1970s which can be used as further references for this page. Recommend no deletion, however the article should be tagged that citations are needed and more editors can be pulled to work on the project. Preferrably some older members that remember the movement and not some of you younger editors. I know today you guys remember the "Pog Wash" of 1995, however if you search for pog on google now you see very few sources on Pogs alone, let alone the mention of the name Pog Wash anywhere. It doesn't mean it didn't happen. --Banime (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I have updated the article further and am finding more and more sources all the time. Please continue to give the article at least a chance. For Weedpunk related stories please see The Illuminatus! Trilogy and Weedpunk authors such as Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson. Many of the Weedpunk stories are short stories hidden in collections, which makes them harder to find for verification purpose. I recently found The Days of Perky Pat in a collection of Phillip K. Dick short stories, another important Weedpunk piece.--Banime (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Banime, I think that you are missing the point here :( The central issue is not whether you can find fictional works which fit your definition, but whether the genre you describe is widely recognised and described in reliable sources under the name "weedpunk".
      The article is well-written and well-structured, and it open with the assertion that "Weedpunk is a subgenre of fantasy and speculative fiction which came into prominence in the 1960s and early 1970s", which is a clear assertion of notability. What references in reliable sources can you provide to support that the assertions made in that sentence? Can you demonstrate from references in reliable sources (preferably scholarly sources) that the term "weedpunk" is authoritatively established as describing a genre of fiction? Unless you can find the references for the assertion in that opening sentence, then the it doesn't matter how well-referenced the rest of the article is, it's still simply original research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I understand better now. I'm attempting to clean up the article and find more sources. Hopefully by clearing up some of the more poorly worded statements and properly scaling down the scope of the article it can be at least temporarily postponed from deletion until it can be even more greatly improved. --Banime (talk) 07:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I remember this from my childhood it is definitely not a hoax. My father used to store old "weedpunk" magazines under his bed and I used to read them when my parents were away. I will continue to look for these magazines to scan, but for now I recommend no deletion. --71.223.63.221 (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — 71.223.63.221 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep - I strongly object to this article being deleted. Weedpunk has a small but devoted following, one which has admittedly dwindled somewhat in recent years, and removing this article from our online encyclopedia would be a huge mistake. The sources need to be cleaned up and more need to be added, but that is part of the evolution of any article, and is most certainly NOT a reason to delete it. If we, the keepers of this online tome of knowledge, become so keen on removing all the articles with topics about which we are unfamiliar, what then would we be left with but a shell of our grand dream? 72.144.91.74 (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — 72.144.91.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The more I see of this, the more I think its a simple hoax. - Galloglass 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Agreed. the article has been hoax-tagged, and the content is getting sillier and sillier as we speak. At first I thought it to be a weak attempt to cram unrelated works into a non-existant genre under a neologism, but it looks like it's actually just someone having a rather ho-hum joke. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. I have nothing invested in this article. I was simply browsing the AFD logs and noticed a topic with which I had some familiarity. I thought it might have been up for deletion because it was a poor article or because of vandalism or something similar, but I clicked the link and found an entry with what appeared a very bright future. That's why I'm voting to keep. 72.144.91.74 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete You know, I tried to find sources for this, but was unable to do so, and give the article a fair chance. Elaborate hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I intended to bring this to AfD this morning, but BrownHairedGirl beat me to it. The keep messages above from the anons are not, in any way, persuasive. This started with repeated attempts to add this information to the Literary punk genres article, and when that failed, the creation of this article was the next step. I was prepared to give Banime the benefit of the doubt, but this looks like a hoax or a joke, and the humor has worn off. Delete with prejudice. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for helping me up to this far (and earlier in my wikipedia career as well). However, please read The Illuminatus! Trilogy and try to tell me that that does not fit the genre of Weedpunk very well. There is more Weedpunk literature, I just need time to find it all and get citations and resources. --Banime (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure if you understand. No one seems to be arguing the existence or nonexistence of books and other works that fall under the given definition. The argument is that the term "weedpunk" it not used by any reliable sources to describe those works. All sources added so far merely talk about drug use. I don't see the term "weedpunk" in any of them. If you haven't already, please look at WP:NEOLOGISM. -Verdatum (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest possible delete with prejudice against the sockpuppets. An unverifiable original research essay about something made up one day as a hoax, disguised as a genuine article, with references that do not mention the subject and sock/meatpuppets attempting to sway the vote of this AfD. Don't be fooled. Google provides almost nothing for the term "weedpunk".--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 15:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• And anyway, "punk" didn't really exist until about 1976 anyway when bands like Ramones came onto the scene, so to link this with the 1960s is nonsense.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I will have to contest this. In the Steampunk article it says "Although many works now considered seminal to the genre were published in the 1960s and 1970s, the term steampunk originated in the late 1980s as a tongue in cheek variant of cyberpunk." Weedpunk is very similar, however it is at a disadvantage because the negative connotations with the term weed caused the name to not become as widespread as the more popular Steampunk. Please continue to give this article a chance. --Banime (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you just admitting that it is a non-notable neologism? Let the sources come first then the article on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of wikipedia articles that are under construction that have additional citations needed tags, and that is all I am asking for for this. There are sources out there, and I am currently finding them and I will make this article reliable and verifiable. I just need the time to make this a valid article for an encyclopedia. It already has the framework, just needs more citations. If USMA is allowed to exist with the tag, why shouldn't Weedpunk? There is no need to delete it there is already enough evidence to show that it indeed exists and should be explored further so that a decent article can be made. --Banime (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that the United States Military Academy article, simply because it needs more references, has no more grounds to exist than this article? With all due respect, that argument is a red herring. —Travis^talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a few months ago it had almost no citations or sources. I helped build it up and make it into the more acceptable article that it is today. I ask only for the same consideration and time to similarly improve Weedpunk. --Banime (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent)With all due respect and good faith, looking at your contribs to that article, you made exactly one edit, removing one sentence. I'd hardly call that "building it up". Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In response to this, I participated in many of the discussions as well. Editing an article always takes the contributions and efforts of more than one editor. Although seeing as how this article is turning out, it seems like only I and Verdatum (and others to very limited extents) are aware of that, as everyone else has pounced on it immediately to get it deleted, instead of trying to help it so it stays and helps out wikiusers everywhere. As a personal aside, I always thought encyclopedias were about spreading information, not withholding it. --Banime (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to avoid making an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. But in that case, no one is questioning the existence of a notable institution called the USMA. I'm not asking you to cite sources for all the claims and facts in the article, I'm just asking for one single reliable source that claims "There is a term called 'Weedpunk' and it means <definition>" This is what's demanded in order to justify an article's existence according to the guideline of Notability. -Verdatum (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Many authors and musicians perhaps better known in other genres have none the less contributed important works to the weedpunk corpus. Alanalans (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Alanalans (talk • contribs) has made no other edits outside this specific topic.
  • And where is the evidence in reliable sources that there is any such thing as "the weedpunk corpus"? Anyone can invent a term and write an essay on how it constitutes a literary genre fitting a particular definition, but that's original research and has no place in wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can find a WP:RS, I have no reason to believe any exist. -Verdatum (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's ridiculous that all the other "Punk" articles should be allowed to exist when some of them lack even the (admittedly small) number of citations found in this article. -Just add maize (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Just add maize (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Article simply needs more citations. Many other articles have less grounds than this and are allowed to stay for improvement, I believe the article can become valid --Windmill1856 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — Windmill1856 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note - please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Thanks —Travis^talk 19:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but don't forget WP:GOOGLEHITS. Weedpunk may not be the world's largest literary genre but that does not imply that it simply doesn't exist. The biggest problem here seems to be poor choice in references. While I (as well as several others on this page) seem already familiar with the subject, it is not surprising that someone who has never heard of Weedpunk might dismiss it as farce. However, the article does provide several examples of authors working in this genre (Shea,Wilson,Dick) as well as major references in popular culture (Dylan,Stone). For some subjects this level of detail may be ok, but I suppose given Weedpunk's controversial nature that it might not be enough in this instance. I vote Keep and yet urge the authors of the original article to do a little more homework finding solid sources next time so that this type of discussion doesn't need to happen again. GermanJoey (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) — GermanJoey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Dylan and stone are not references in popular culture. They are supposed examples in popular culture. A reference in popular culture to Dylan would be if Dylan used the word "weedpunk" in one of his songs. He hasn't or it would certainly show up on a Google search. No one is doubting that there are creative works that involve marijuana and sci-fi/fantasy. At this point, I'm just asking for the slightest reason to believe references that verifiablereferences exist that define or even use the word, and these references can eventually be found. Drug culture (marijuana in particular) is pretty huge on the Internet. So the only reason I can imagine why this wouldn't show up on a Google search would be if it was a term that was popular in the 60s and everyone who used it completely forgot about it by the time the Internet came into existence. Please read WP:NEOLOGISM and explain to me what reason you have to believe that this term doesn't fall into this category. -Verdatum (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wow, man. I'm not really sure what to make of this. There's sources, but I don't think any of them are abut the genre, it seems to be a combination of "Legalize pot" stuff and stories the author arbitrarily classifies as "weedpunk". In fact, the constant refrence to "weed" and not "marijuana" or "hemp" or "cannabis" makes this one smell...well, kind of funny. Heheh, that was a joke. I'm going to say Delete, and I'd ask the author just what the they was smoking when he made this...but I think I know. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete As much as sentimentality toward some of the books mentioned might make me want to cry out "keep", this "term" fails on notability and the article itself is just ludicrous. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  Give it another chance. You of all people know the importance of weed punk, as you're one of the only educated editors on here who actually knows the weedpunk works that have been mentioned.--Banime (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  If you want the article to be given a chance then you need to start providing references in reliable sources that the concept of "weedpunk" meets wikipedia's notability standards and is not just something which you made up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, especially since none of the so-called sources in the article even mention “weedpunk.” —Travis^talk 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete this is an obvious hoax Snappy56 (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, and if your user page is indeed correct, then I can understand why you may think that this is a hoax. Being from Ireland, you probably have almost no experience with weedpunk. Stick with your Irish articles where you may have more expertise and please leave mainly American underground cultural movements which you have no idea about alone. Remember, this is not a majority vote, so please keep whatever beliefs about marijuana to yourself when discussing the deletion. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just very ignorant of the subject since there was no similar movement in your country and you have little to no experience with it. --Banime (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • comment Personally attacking someone because they are from Ireland is not the way to argue your point. Please limit your remarks to the subject at hand, the credibility and notability of this article, not the qualities of the people participating in the debate.Beeblbrox (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I think the nationality of the editor has a lot to do with this point. It's obvious he hasn't even heard of an American underground movement because he has very little exposure to it. This may lead him to assume incorrectly that this it may in fact be a hoax because of his limited amount of knowledge and the lack of easily obtainable internet sources (however, this point alone does not discredit its notability, see WP:GOOGLEHITS). And if you reread my statement, I think you can see there was no personal attack there whatsoever, and you are the one trying to derail the argument. I'm just trying to weed (forgive the pun) out any form of bias that may affect the unwarranted deletion of this article. --Banime (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • I have it on good authority that they have books in Ireland Banime and have done for many years. - Galloglass 01:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
          • This small point has already gotten out of hand, so let's stop it here. I'm just trying to say that users who immediately dismiss this without presenting any type of evidence may be biased in some form or another. --Banime (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
            • Thank you for your patronising and insulting response. Yes, I am Irish and you know we are quite advanced these days, we've got crime and pollution and even the internet. Don't tell what to do! Don't tell me to "Stick with your Irish articles", I'll edit where I please! Don't assume I know nothing about so-called "American underground cultural movements". FYI, I lived and worked in a major US city for over two years. Instead of attacking me, why don't you produce some evidence of the notability of this subject? Something which you have been repeatedly asked to do but repeatedly failed to produce. Instead you attack editors who disagree with you in a pathetic attempt to sow confusion. As I as I see it there are 3 possibilites: 1) This is a hoax - most likely option 2) This is a very obscure topic and is therefore not notable and should not be in Wikipedia 3) This may be Original Research by you, which again means it should not be in Wikipedia. Now instead of insulting me again, go and use your time to produce some evidence of notability! Now excuse me while I go feed the leprechauns... Snappy56 (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
              • If you read up you see we already settled this. Anyway, I'd like to apologize again to you personally. However, your point that I have been attacking editors is wrong, as you were the only editor I "attacked" (although I didn't mean it that way). And I have consistently been trying to get reliable sources for the article. My comment was just an emotional outburst when I saw you immediately assume it was an "obvious" hoax without offering why. In fact, since the article is up for deletion and was not speedy deleted, I'd say your comment could have been taken as a more offensive comment to the majority of editors since it assumes that whoever does not see this as a hoax must be extremely stupid. Anyway, I hope you can see where I'm coming from, I didn't mean to insult anyone. Sorry again! --Banime (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep. My friends and I were talking about a short story we had read our freshmen year of college that was in the Weedpunk genre, and none of us could remember it's name. I figured I'd search for Weedpunk here to see if it was mentioned at all, since Weedpunk is a relatively niche genre. We shouldn't delete this article and make it even more obscure than what it already is. By the way, the class was "Postmodern Rebellion in Fantasy: An Examination of a Phenomenon."Derpington (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply. I doubt you intended it that way, but you have just made a very good argument for deletion. Wikipedia uses secondary sources, and it records things which are already notable, as defined in Wikipedia:Notability. If the subject is indeed as obscure as you say — and I think you are right that it is obscure — then there should not be a wikipedia article on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Reply. Good point, however please remember within Wikipedia:Notability that "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity", although these may positively correlate with notability." Just because it is not famous or popular does not automatically preclude it from the encyclopedia. In fact, I say if he is learning about the genre in a college class, even if it is a smaller school, it is still notable. However I agree with the rest of the definition that reliable secondary sources must be found, and will continue to search. --Banime (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Reply. Good start, but please read the rest of Wikipedia:Notability, to see how notability is assessed. Being the subvject of class a college is not relevant; what matters is substantial coverage in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Reply. While this is true, there was at least one secondary article we read for the class that mentioned Weedpunk specifically by name when talking about dystopian representation and their reflection on the culture of their authors. I'm going to go through my old books and see if I still have the book in question to help out with the article. Derpington (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
          • It will important to offer details of the ref, so that other editors can assess whether the reference was in a reliable source, and whether the coverage is substantial. Also, one source may not be enough; it's not sufficient for the term to have been used by one critic, we need evidence that it is more widely used. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
• comment You, Banime, are the one that needs to produce some evidence proving the notability of this subject. It's clear you are sincere in feeling that this is an important subject deserving of it's own entry, but without proper secondary sources, it stands a good chance of being deleted. Refering to someone as "ignorant" and telling them to "stick with your Irish article" is a personal attack, and being Irish does not make someone automatically biased. c'monBeeblbrox (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I see! Sorry for the confusion. But hopefully you can at least see the point I was trying to make. I see yours now as well. --Banime (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks for being reasonable. If you do find any reliable secondary sources that use this term, please post them here and we will help add them to the article. — Satori Son 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources appear to mention this. Likely OR, possible hoax. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment While doing a bit of Googling for this term, I came across this site here which gives this away as a hoax. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it doesn't. He thinks it's a hoax, but he's not verifying it as one.--UsaSatsui (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, looking at it again you may be right, but it does lead me to wonder a bit more about the truthfulness of this article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
      • This is the hardest uphill battle I've ever fought in my life. I'll find the sources eventually, but after seeing all this I'm just hoping it's enough... --Banime (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
        • No relevant sources so far, and external claims that it's a hoax, so at this point there are no grounds at all to keep the article.
          I think that the article is probably a hoax which belongs in WP:BJAODN, but I accept that "weedpunk" might be a term already used in some obscure punk fan-circles (as Derpington claimed, above). However, if that's all it is, then the term is non-notable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:48, 6 February 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.