Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alaskan Thunderfuck (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alaskan Thunderfuck

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

The last AfD was closed as "keep" about a year ago, though I think it could have just as reasonably yielded a deletion. The article cites no reliable sources, and editors at AfD #1 only managed to find one additional citation: a passing mention in a single HuffPo article. Sourcing and notability issues aside, the content itself is badly written and not in any way encyclopedic. Since no merge or redirect has been enacted over the past year, I think outright deletion is the best course of action. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. sst✈^discuss 17:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – This strain is much more well known as "Matanuska Thunderfuck" and "Matanuska Tundra".

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

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have notified WikiProject Cannabis about this nomination, in hopes to generate more discussion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Just meets WP:GNG, but not by much, as per the following sources. ^[1], ^[2], ^[3]. An option is to merge content to Cannabis strains. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The Big Book of Buds". pp. 233–235.
^ "Danny Danko's Marijuana Strain of the Week". High Times.
^ "The Cannabible 3". p. 370.

- Thank you Northamerica1000 for your comments. What is your assessment of the sources you have suggested, in terms of reliability and usability in an encyclopedic sense? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Cannabible mentions the strain once in passing, hardly significant coverage. As for the others, eh... I'm not convinced a brief profile of the strain in a huge almanac of strains is terribly persuasive either. That High Times editor calls the strain "legendary", but doesn't even try to explain why. I don't doubt that this strain is well-renowned in smoking circles, but I still don't see any general notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage found in Google books using the various names. I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject Cannabis be alerted to the article's poor state. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I have yet to find evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources which would be compatible for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The sources suggested thus far (and in the prior AFD as well) are not suitable in my opinion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamaguchi先生: What about a merge to Cannabis strains? This would WP:PRESERVE the content and improve coverage in the merge target article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as I am not informed enough to make a difference between an unimportant cannabis strain and a notable one. I seriously doubt not all of them are inherently notable. Lack of reliable sources make me lean towards deletion, but there are a lot of book sources under the alternative names... I would support the proposed Merge. Ceosad (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Not sure why but I thought this was a pornography model ... Proves how much I know , Anyway Weak Keep per above - Lack of sources isn't ideal but the book sources are IMHO enough notability wise. –Davey2010^Talk 01:04, 21 November 2015 (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.

[1] "The Big Book of Buds". pp. 233–235.

[2] "Danny Danko's Marijuana Strain of the Week". High Times.

[3] "The Cannabible 3". p. 370.

[1]

[2]

[3]