Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Describes a "possibly mythical" strain of marijuana - by the article's own admission, therefore, it is unverifiable. Satori 00:00, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

  • Keep on the basis that this cannot be contained in the marijuana article. Geogre 02:00, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) Delete: "The narcs are keeping the best weed for themselves, man!" Myth, movie trivia. If someone were interested in giving us this information, that someone would have gone to the logical spot, Marijuana, and not done this. Geogre 00:32, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You cannot expect newbies to know what the best place to insert new information is...The user's earlier 3 contributions appear good. I don't think his/her intent was malicious. — David Remahl 01:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't either, and I regret the bitterness of the tone on this page in general. I was just thinking that it's not a logical thing in an encyclopedia. One should think of big topics before small. Geogre 01:15, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Disagreed. I don't see any good reason that subtopics should always redirect to a main topic. One should think of big topics before small. -- Is there evidence that this is a generally accepted principle, in Wikipedia or elsewhere? With all due respect, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Well, it's the system from Linaeus down that one begins by discussing the general before the particular, and it's Occam on to suggest that there be no proliferation without cause, so it seems axiomatic to me, personally, that you put like with like until it is so unlike that you need to distinguish. A type of pot, or a pot legend, seems to me to belong with a discussion of pot, unless it is conceptually different in some way or involved enough that it is thought of, by the users, differently. This is kind of an article of faith with me. I'm just one voice (unlike Netoholic), but it's how I vote and how I think of encyclopedias. In fact, what you say below seems to me to say that this is such an involved tale and so independently discussed that it is not like marijuana. Geogre 22:01, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • No vote, but if some information can be verified then merge with marijuana and redirect. — David Remahl 01:08, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Resolved by merging into main cannabis article, and making G13 into a redirect. -- Netoholic @ 01:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You did this after one hour. I agree that that would probably have been the dispensation, but please let voters have their say. Geogre 01:46, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as a separate article: significant urban legend. Googling for G13 marijuana turns up a lot of hits. It appears that a lot of people have bought into the legend, so to speak. Btw I reverted the redirect, so now the article is stand-alone again; it is appropriate for a subtopic to have a short blurb and a link to the main article. Otherwise the short mention of G13 gets lost in the long cannabis article. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:49, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. No redirect. It's a common belief among the ganja set. — Gwalla | Talk 00:59, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wile E's plan. And rap knuckles again for the unilateral "Resolved". --Jerzy(t) 04:26, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G13&oldid=357519685"