Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cannabis dispensary

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. WP:SNOW. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis dispensary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There has been some discussion about whether this article is suitable for mainspace (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Draft:Cannabis dispensary page move). I am opening this discussion to see if there is a consensus to delete. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:00, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The topic is clearly notable. Jusdafax 17:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are sufficient RS citations to easily pass GNG, though the article does need cleaning up. The structure and flow of the article is a bit muddled and it needs (better) sourcing for, or removal of, several paragraphs. However, per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP, none of these problems are sufficiently serious to be a valid reason to delete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Notability for this particular topic is reliably sourced enough, if a bit inexpertly (page author User:potguru is a new user). The article certainly has issues, but not enough to warrant deletion. Per WP:AFD, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." There is enough reliably sourced content to work with. Also, I believe the topic is relevant in it's own right, as there is a quickly growing number of dispensaries that are not medical in nature. As such, it wouldn't fit well under Medical cannabis dispensary which redirects to Medical cannabis article. I will concede that there are few regions in the world where non-medical dispensaries are currently legal and the article should be careful to not WP:CRYSTALBALL and that any original or un-sourced content should be removed. Chrisw80 (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Clearly notable but, obviously needs much work (which I'm sure it will get). Mlpearc (open channel) 19:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Passes GNG. Class455fan1 (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There isn't a single reliable secondary source about the actual, general subject of cannabis dispensaries used in this article. There are instead, unreliable sources, sources about drug laws in other countries and states, and sources about everything but the actual topic. Virtually half of the article remains unsourced, and where sources are used, they are either unreliable or don't support the material at all. While it is certainly true that the topic of cannabis dispensaries is worthy of an article on Wikipedia, this is not how we write articles. Wikipedia articles are written using reliable secondary sources about the actual subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For me, the argument that WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP applies here is the decisive factor. It doesn't matter how an article was started to be written. What matters is whether it can be improved into a keep-able state. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Tryptofish. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Typtofish. Plus the article looks much better already. The power of collaboration at work. --Majora (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but needs cleanup and spin-off. Seems more like an article for Cannabis dispensaries in the United States than one on the topic generally. It's the difference between Coffeeshop (Netherlands) and Coffeehouse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep; subject obviously meets our notability guidelines. Please keep in mind the most important rule at AfD: "if it can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate". FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, but which of the 6 speedy keep criteria does this nomination meet? Or perhaps you meant special extra strong keep which doesn't really mean anything more than keep? Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Specifically: 1 and 3. Do not take me for a fool. Best, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (plenty of in-depth coverage from reliable sources) but move to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States; didn't realize we already had an article for Coffeeshop (Netherlands) (plus, the two are very different beasts). I considered recommending this be merged with Cannabis in the United States, but that article is already rather large and I think there's enough independent material about dispensaries to merit a standalone article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep And change to Marijuana Dispensary, which is the best and most correct article title. Calling this "cannabis dispensaries" disrespects the references. Please see marijuana dispensary name discussion here and original nomination for deletion. --Potguru (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Marijuana Dispensary seems appropriate. Cannabis dispensaries in the United States is not a viable option given the article discusses other countries, which it should. There are many more examples besides the US and the Netherlands, FYI. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 17:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Article was originally named marijuana dispensary until the same user who recommended the article for deletion changed the article name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cannabis_dispensary#Not_ready_for_mainspace) --Potguru (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems obvious. Article is imperfect but there's a lot of activity on it so it will improve. There are many sources, including a whole host of federal and local discussions about regulation, so I have no doubt that the topic is notable. LaMona (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close and incubate  An admin moved the article out of draftspace to AfD it, and has no opinion that it should be deleted.  This was an editorial dispute between putting the article in mainspace and leaving it in draftspace, and this AfD is interfering with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.  As per our WP:Deletion policy, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." Also, WP:Deletion policy says, "It is...inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to be clear on this, the admin did have an opinion and !voted accordingly. See above. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 22:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• User:FoCuSandLeArN, You say this is "clear", but provide insufficient information for me to verify your comment.  I've reviewed your comment in the page history.  There are only two diffs, one is the creation of the discussion [1], and the second is a question [2].  You yourself have !voted "Speedy keep" under criteria WP:SK#1, so you agree with me that there is "no argument for deletion".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, I think there appears to be a mixup. The nominator is a different user than the user that got the ball moving, which I was alluding to. In other words, the admin that moved the page is not the admin that nominated the article for deletion. That's a problem with there being two discussions at the same time... FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 23:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The page has been moved to Cannabis dispensaries in the United States. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can we get a real RfC as to whether to use the word cannabis or marijuana globally and finally put this edit war to rest? Wikipedia is run on consensus, not pointless "this word is intrinsically better" arguments. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 22:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ament to that. Consensus is key here, and without eveidence of consensus, we have to act as if there were non, and therefore try to establish new consensus. (Is consensus like the boggieman, I've said it one too many times now...) (t) Josve05a (c) 23:09, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree, it's time to move this forward in the correct direction. It's become too fragmented (not that I've necessarily helped with the fragmentation, my apologies). Chrisw80 (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: There will still be a problem. Even if the community comes to a concensus on the issue of (marijuana vs cannabis) that consensus may not preclude the need to a specific article about marijuana dispensaries as most of the reliable sources seem to prefer that term and there are specific licenses issued by governmental bodies who's names cannot be changed "just because" it might be convenient to do so. An article named cannabis dispensary makes no sense because, simply, there are no such places. In Michigan there are state licenses issued for marihuana dispensaries. --Potguru (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Chrisw80 (talk · contribs) has posted one over here. Please move all discussion about the title there. --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 23:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - No reason for this to be deleted. Mass content disputes are no reason to delete. This snowballed into something huge, and I don't think AfD needs to get ran over with it. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 23:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although the article needs more scholarly publications over news articles the topic has merit...surprised it was not been created as yet. -- Moxy (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.