Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roach clip (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 merge to Joint (cannabis). Neither of the keep arguments count any more strongly then assertions and the need for sourcing remains. The material we have is very poorly sourced so there merger needs to be very selective to what is sourced. The consensus of where to merge is unclear so I'm happy for editiorial judgement to be used for this Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roach clip

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

This article was transwikied in June 2005, and somehow inexplicably survived an AFD in October 2007 (one in which nobody addressed the appropriately tagged transwiki action). It's nothing more than a dicdef, with two references--one to the definition at dictionary.com and the other to the definition at Merriam-Webster's online site. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I would have tagged it for speedy deletion (A5) had it not survived an AFD after the transwiki date. At the very least, it should be redirected to Joint (cannabis), which contains essentially the same information and provides context for the usage of the term. Horologium (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep There are obvious alternatives to deletion and the nominator suggests one himself. There are plenty of sources available for the topic and if we chose to merge, then roach (cannabis culture) would be the obvious place. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are plenty of sources available, supply them. This was originally transwikied six years ago, and the tired "there are plenty of sources available" trope was used four years ago. All too often, "there are plenty of sources available" is shorthand for "I can't be bothered to actually source the article, but I like it". The only sources are two dictionary definitions, and it was transwikied six years ago. The arguments provided in the original AFD don't cut it; Fish or cut bait. As I noted originally, if I hadn't looked at the article history (including the talk page), I would have speedied it (under A5). This is actually a courtesy discussion, because I did a bit of follow-through before nominating it. As it stands, any uninvolved admin could easily delete it as an A5, and then you would be arguing it at DRV, and I seriously doubt that any admin would be willing to overturn an A5 deletion. Horologium (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Joint (cannabis). Some Wikipedia article needs to clearly explain what a roach clip is, to help those who might mistakenly believes it is something used to kill cockroaches, and include the photo shown here at this article. But the device itself, while mentioned in numerous books, doesn't seem to have a lot written about it, or at least I haven't found enough to warrant a full article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd, I thought a roach clip was for entomologists who wanted a creative broach. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not trying to invoke WP:WAX, but we can draw inspiration from articles such as bong, hookah and rolling paper, which show the potential of what the article could be, albeit shorter. As is, it needs work and expanding, but roach clips have had many cultural references (Shorty using jumper cables for one in "Scary Movie" for example, Cheech and Chong, etc.) and are a commonly used item, with many even serving as a form of "art". Yes, art. The fact that they are illegal in some states, yet legal in others can be covered. There is enough potential material to make an article of at least modest size, and sources do exist. High Times should be good for at least a few, NORML would, too. The primary problems with the article are issues of editing. I would find it very, very hard to believe that the device "roach clip" is not notable in any general way. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not that I know even how to use such an object, but I can't see what (a) is wrong with the article, or (b) can't be fixed by a merger. Why is this at AfD? Bearian (talk) 04:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Cannabis (drug). It can be recreated if it is expanded from reliable sources. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2011 (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.