Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference between Indica and Sativa
- 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 merge to Cannabis. with no prejudice against spinning out the article again if sufficient sourcing is found. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Difference between Indica and Sativa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"This is not a noteworthy topic for an entire acticle. Some of the material could well be included in other articles, but not as a standalone." (from contested prod) Bulwersator (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support To add to my original proposal for deletion, information on the differences between the "species" or "strains" of Cannabis belongs at Cannabis, where the issue of what is meant by "indica" and "sativa" has been properly discussed. I don't see that it makes sense to have a separate article on this topic. I would suggest that all well-sourced material in Difference between Indica and Sativa is moved to Cannabis#Difference between Indica and Sativa, and the article deleted. (There are other problems with the article: the title doesn't make sense by itself; "Indica" and "Sativa" shouldn't be formatted as they are in the title; the main source, http://www.differencebetween.com is hardly a reliable one.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything useful to Cannabis. The topic isn't inappropriate for Wikipedia, but a stand-alone article on the differences between sativa and indica doesn't seem warranted. Guettarda (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge concerns me. Many of the statements are referenced to images (graphs) in an article, not to the text. I have not read the article, so I don't know if these references are used correctly. Some other material is referenced to blogs; this should not be merged. The correctly cited material is used in a biased manner. I think a merge would be a lot of work for someone besides the original author of the article. If he's willing to take it on, another editor would have to verify everything as the author appears to be using wikipedia to advocate marijuana clinics or specific strains carried at clinics. Guettarda, my arguments against do not mean I know whether or you not you are volunteering to do the merge work. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant a procedural, rather than (necessarily) an actual merger of the article into Cannabis. I do believe that the topic is encyclopaedic, and if someone is willing to spin off an (appropriately sourced, encyclopaedic) article about this topic, they shouldn't have to go through DRV or worry about it being tagged as a CSD G4. Guettarda (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I agree, then, that the procedural merger would be preferable, as the topic is notable. Pseudofusulina (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant a procedural, rather than (necessarily) an actual merger of the article into Cannabis. I do believe that the topic is encyclopaedic, and if someone is willing to spin off an (appropriately sourced, encyclopaedic) article about this topic, they shouldn't have to go through DRV or worry about it being tagged as a CSD G4. Guettarda (talk) 21:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A merge concerns me. Many of the statements are referenced to images (graphs) in an article, not to the text. I have not read the article, so I don't know if these references are used correctly. Some other material is referenced to blogs; this should not be merged. The correctly cited material is used in a biased manner. I think a merge would be a lot of work for someone besides the original author of the article. If he's willing to take it on, another editor would have to verify everything as the author appears to be using wikipedia to advocate marijuana clinics or specific strains carried at clinics. Guettarda, my arguments against do not mean I know whether or you not you are volunteering to do the merge work. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support or procedural Merge as described by Guettarda above. deletion of this article, due to problems I mention above. However, I disagree that the topic is not noteworthy. This could be taken to Cannabis, but at some point it could be its own well-referenced article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge referenced information to Cannabis, which will serve to expand the Cannabis article. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support merge. The topic is perfectly noteworthy, but it is likely to be most valuable in context in the Cannabis article. Stand-alone it is a bit spare IMO. JonRichfield (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2012 (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.