Talk:Alaskan Thunderfuck

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Retarget, 23 February 2022, see discussion.
no consensus, 30 October 2015, see discussion.
keep, 6 November 2014 (UTC), see discussion.

This page was proposed for deletion by Yamaguchi先生 (talk · contribs) on 3 November 2014.
It was contested by RadioKAOS (talk · contribs) on November 4, 2014

Contested PROD

For one, making a claim of non-notability about an article which is assessed as Mid-importance for a WikiProject suggests that you really didn't think this through. For another, as I write this, polls open in about 7 hours for Alaska's biennial general election. One of the major issues on the ballot is a voter initiative to legalize marijuana in Alaska. The outcome of that initiative could very well have an effect on the notability of this topic.

Here's a few suggestions. First off, what kind of sources did you consult, or did you just do a cursory Google search like everyone else? If you really did come up short in finding sources, it could be because its common name is "Matanuska Thunderfuck" and not "Alaskan Thunderfuck". Any notion of deletion needs to be postponed until after the election, at the very least. Ideally, a single article about cannabis in Alaska would cure this problem. Existing coverage of this topic is a random, half-assed, "indiscriminate collection of information" if I ever saw one. This article, plus other articles related to cannabis in Alaska such as Ravin v. State and Charlo Greene, lean towards being perpetually subpar and could fit comfortably within a single coherent article. Scattershot coverage of this topic across various articles has led to, for example, enthusiastic but ill-informed editors muddying things even further by confusing Ravin with subsequent cases, leaving factual inaccuracies in their wake. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RadioKAOS:, almost one year has passed since my initial proposed deletion. I am disappointed that this article has failed to progress, possibly due to scarcity of reliable sources available on this specific topic. What evidence is there of this subject receiving relevant and non-trivial coverage from reliable publications? Please present those sources here on this talk page, so that we may work together on integrating them into the article. At present, all of the content appears to be attributed to sites which fail our standards for reliable sources I would like to work with you on correcting this issue. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 01:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]