The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 02:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox
DYK check Reviewer instructions Earwig's Copyvio Detector QPQ check Character count A Simple Word Counter Reviewers' template Find sources (notability) Hook length

AK-47 (cannabis)

• ... that AK-47 can help with chemotherapy?
  • ALT1: ... that AK-47 is a "genetic miracle"?
  • ALT2: ... that a copy number variation in the DNA of AK-47 is responsible for its high levels of THC?
  • ALT3: ... that you can make White Russian with AK-47?
  • ALT4: ... that AK-47 is reportedly "much more gentle than you'd imagine"?
  • ALT5: ... that when you mix a White Russian with an AK-47, the result is a plant with "a pleasantly sweet aroma"?
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Organ donation in India

Created by Kingsif (talk). Self-nominated at 11:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC).

• Promotional nonsense. Medical claims MUST be verified through sources compliant with WP:MEDRS, and a random weed mag's opinion about 'miracles' isn't 'DYK' it is vacuous puffery. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC

• Removed alt0 as it is no longer in the article. Maybe Andy can learn that DYK noms aren't discussions; you wouldn't drop that comment in an FACR, would you. Kingsif (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Suggested ALT2 using source https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/028654v1: "a high THCA expressing cultivar AK-47", copy number in Table 1 same source. Using "THC" in the hook rather than THCA might be a slightly incorrect but more readable/familiar form, I'd be fine with either. ☆ Bri (talk)

• Suggested a funny Alt3; in article [1]. Kingsif (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I actually prefer ALT3 to my proposed ALT2. Not being a botanist/genetecist, am not 100% sure about my reading of the paper. Plus it was impeached as "only" pre-publication, if that's a reason to go to another ALT. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    • It is strange, if it was 10 years old and pre-pub, fair, it may have issues, but not a 2021 paper. Oddly, I read a lot of the positive reviews of WP COVID coverage, and these top medical folk celebrated how many research papers were used as refs, pretty much all pre-pub because of newness. It shouldn't be discounted unless a more recent paper disagrees, and that is the impression I got the last time I read MEDRS. Kingsif (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
      • It's a 2015 paper, not one from last year... Fram (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
• ALT1 is a hook that conveys no information besides promoting the subject, and should not be used. (t · c) buidhe 19:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • That was not the intention, and I do not think it would read that way: when people see the term "AK-47", they do not think of something that could be "genetic" - it is intriguing. I don't mind it being struck, though, just need to clarify that there really is no nonsense promotion. Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• @Kingsif: New enough, long enough, neutral, and plagiarism-free; bioRxiv is a red flag, but I'll let it slide given that the self-published article is written by subject-matter experts and the paper has been cited multiple times. I am concerned about the use of Leafly, though, given its openness to paid content and its nature as a shop—same goes for weedmaps, partially, and Olivastu doesn't look like a fantastic source either. That said, ALT3 is cited and fantastic, and a QPQ has been done, so we'll just have to clear up the sourcing and we'll be good to go. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I've added an ALT4 I think might work, as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• Hmm, gonna shoot the breeze with this issue: isn't there a possibility that ALT3 can be read as support for shooting russians? given that there's a war going on... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• @Theleekycauldron: What needs to be done to move this forward towards approved DYK? ☆ Bri (talk) 15:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Bri: not so much! Someone will need to tick ALT4 () or propose something else because I don't think ALT3 is viable; someone is gonna either have to justify or replace the Olivastu, weedmaps, and Leafly sourcess. If all that happens, we're good to go! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    Okay, to avoid the sourcing and sensitivity issues I've created ALT5. It's sourced to the scientific paper by Trofin et al. that says "White Russian combines AK 47 with the White Widow to produce a snowy plant with a pleasantly sweet aroma and a...long lasting effect" (p. 120) ☆ Bri (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

    • Not wild about it- i think i like ALT4 better. But I'll tick it if it gets there. We still have to punch up the article's sourcing, though, yes? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

      Actually, I don't think so. Is there a DYK policy that covers sourcing other than the hook? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

      Yeah, it's at WP:DYK#gen4: Articles for DYK must conform to the core policies of Verifiability, Living Person Biographies, and Copyright. Nominations should be rejected if an inspection reveals that they are not based on reliable sources... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Bri? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  I made some sourcing cleanups [2]; hopefully, this addresses the verifiability concern (it was just verifiability, right?). ☆ Bri (talk) 23:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

  • oh, thanks, yes (i did enjoy shabbat, thank you :D)! I think this is basically good to go, although the promoter should pay attention to the sourcing and make a call too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    • I forgot that ALT4 still needs reviewing! that's my bad theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Theleekycauldron: I'm a little confused by the multiple marks. Is ALT3 approved? I assume "yes" since this is transcluded at Template talk:Did you know/Approved but just want to be sure. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
      • it's not—i'm concerned that it reads like a double play encouraging shooting russians. Given the current war... yeah, not sure it's the best idea. So we'll need a reviewer for ALT4- the reason it's transcluded where it is is because noms that get moved there don't get moved back when the approval is rescinded. Sorry 'bout that! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
        • ALT4 is interesting, appropriately sourced, and of appropriate length. Having done a quick recheck of the other DYK criteria as well, I'll approve ALT4 – I'm striking the other ALTs (that haven't been struck already) for the convenience of the eventual promoter. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 02:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Per a discussion at WT:DYK the nomination has been temporarily pulled from prep. This is no fault of the article, but rather a case of unfortunate timing. Perhaps when things settle down the article can be re-promoted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
• From further discussion at WT:DYK, there is clear consensus not to run the hook – pinging ezlev, what else have we got? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm, not sure – I’m struggling to find other hooky hooks for this one. (That’s not to say that I think ALT4 should have run, though; discussions like that one make me really glad there are always other eyes on my work here on Wikipedia.) Let’s see, how about something like

  • ALT6: ... that it's unclear whether the marijuana strain AK-47 is named after the AK-47?
  • ALT7: ... that the 47 in the marijuana strain AK-47 may refer to the number of days between its planting and harvest?

  Those still draw on the shared name with the gun – which I imagine could be avoided entirely in the hook if that’s necessary – but I think they’re more palatable because the hookiness is based on the name thing itself rather than... the actual function of an AK-47. Let me know what you think, leek! ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Right now I think the safest option here is ALT7. It makes no mention of the gun at all and the hook itself makes it clear the subject is a plant and not a gun. I have no opinion on if such a hook is suitable for running right now or if it will need to be delayed, but at least it's not joking about guns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I added "marijuana strain" into the hooks, too, just to be clearer. Also, yes – the fact that people from lots of different backgrounds are here to check our work is quite helpful for when we screw up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• ALT6 and ALT7 are ready to be reviewed (I've added "the" before "marijuana strain" in both hooks). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Maile66 and Mandarax: how do y'all feel about these? any suggestions? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

  • ALT8: ... that AK in the name of the marijuana strain AK-47 may refer to Afghan Kush, and the number 47 the days between planting and harvest?

I'm offering one as well. --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and approve Alt 6 & Alt 7. If the promoter likes Alt 8, go for it. --evrik ^(talk) 16:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)