Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaskan Thunderfuck

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. Discussion to merge/redirect can continue on the talkpage. J04n(talk page) 18:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Thunderfuck (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 are approximately 30,000 hits for this term on Google, but despite searching I have not been able to locate evidence of this subject receiving non-trivial coverage from a reliable source. Please accept my apologies in advance if someone else can turn up appropriate sourcing, best efforts were made to achieve due diligence WP:BEFORE nomination. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD follows a contested PROD, with various and sundry edit warring occurring in between. This is a detail which the nominator should mention on this page, yet doesn't. I offered some advice, but it's unclear as to whether any of it was taken by the nominator. To partially rehash, plus offer additional insights: 1) The WP:COMMONNAME for this is "Matanuska Thunderfuck" and not "Alaskan Thunderfuck". I suspect that someone chose the latter title to make it appear more palatable/understandable to a general audience/the uninitiated, as "Alaskan" refers to an entire U.S. state, while "Matanuska" refers more or less to a localized region of said state; 2) WP:COMMONSENSE should tell anyone that most "respectable" sources are likely to shy away from covering this topic solely on account of its name. I went through this argument several years ago with respect to "Mother Fukker's", a brand of snack foods popular in the 1970s (just one fine example); 3) Yesterday, the voters of Alaska ratified an initiative which legalizes cannabis in the state. That fact alone changes the game, as a good possibility exists that the national media is working on a slew of articles about cannabis in Alaska as we speak, especially given that a media darling like Charlo Greene is still working on stretching her fifteen minutes of fame out to something reasonably resembling fifteen minutes. I think I tried to stress that this nomination is ill-timed for that very reason, and that this poor timing was the most important point I had to offer regarding all of this. Rolling the latter two points together, Steve Heimel of the Alaska Public Radio Network, in anchoring election night coverage, segued from discussing the initiative to introducing a report on returns from the Matanuska-Susitna Valley by referring to the Valley as "the land of Matanuska Thunderfuck", with faux bleeping of the latter syllable. To break this down, "Matanuska Thunderfuck" is for all intents and purposes the symbolic cornerstone of the 40-year battle over the legal status of cannabis in Alaska. I have no strong opinion on whether or not this topic should have its own article, but it's plainly obvious that it's notable. The reason I put it that way; given the article's slow growth, it could easily be merge/redir'ed to another article that people are actually more likely to read. Or perhaps someone with access to better sources could actually improve the damn thing. While I've chosen not to spend yet more time getting involved with yet another activity on here, I do notice that we have a WikiProject Cannabis and that Cannabis in Oregon is one of the project's GAs (and that based on this, the project may already be somewhat ahead of the curve in recognizing the need for the article I proposed when I contested the PROD). RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, at least for the short term, and probably rename to Matanuska Thunderfuck, per the extremely helpful comments of RadioKAOS. Sure enough, a GNews searche turns up a quote in today's Huffington Post: "They have a history up there of growing some well-known strains [of cannabis]. I mean, they've been growing Matanuska Thunderfuck since the '70s." [1] As RadioKAOS says, there might be a better way to cover the newly blooming subject of legal pot in Alaska (see Template:Cannabis in the United States for examples of how this has been handled in other states) but in the meantime, deletion here isn't helpful. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker^talk 17:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect with Cannabis in Alaska, which doesn't exist yet, but should. Despite the protestations from above, there isn't enough significant coverage in reliable sources to put this over the notability threshold at WP:GNG. Sure, that may have something to do with the name of it; but not much - look how well-sourced the article on the similarly named drag queen Alaska Thunderfuck 5000 is. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Cannabis in the United States pending creation of a more state specific article or the addition of sufficient RS sources to establish stand alone notability. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing !vote to Delete per Ymaguchi's well made point. There is nothing here that is adequately sourced to meet WP:GNG and the title is not even correct which would seem to preclude a redirect. Better to delete it and recreate if/when sufficient RS sources become available. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect is an acceptable route, although I'm not sure what details would be merged given that none of the text in the article is adequately sourced. We've had a week to discuss this here, has anyone had success finding more than a passing reference in Huffington Post? Regards Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously stated, the article itself is of questionable value to begin with, and has been further marginalized concurrent with this AFD. However, let's go back to the first ten words of the nominator's rationale. This indicates to me a likelihood that people are going to search for the term on here. We shouldn't mislead readers, by virtue of omission, in instead pointing them in the direction of an article about some third-rate RuPaul wannabe simply because there are more editors willing to work on LGBT topics (or for that matter, reality television personalities) than editors willing to work on cannabis topics. The manner in which WP:WTAF is most often interpreted basically makes Wikipedia out to be another manifestation of The Story of Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody, all the while not exactly moving forward in terms of building encyclopedic coverage. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (confer) @ 15:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 22. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:19, 22 November 2014 (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.