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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana and the brain

[edit]

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

This articles violates various Wikipedia policies - i.e. original research, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOTESSAY,.. This article looks like a doctorate thesis to me and not like an encyclopedic article. The subject of the article is already discussed in length in a multitude of other articles like effects of cannabis and long-term effects of cannabis. Spatulli (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copyright violations- I found out that part of the article is an exact copy of an external website : http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1808 . So I guess there are also some copyright issues here. Spatulli (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Effects of cannabis#Neurological effects. I don't see a need for a separate article at this time per Wikipedia:Content forking. -Atmoz (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Let me begin by noting that the article was created by a group of students as part of a university class project, and we ought not to be too cavalier in handling such things. I agree in principle that the material should be merged, but this should be done by somebody with a thorough understanding of the topic. The article certainly has problems, but it contains significant material that is not in the Effects of cannabis article and gives plenty of sources. I feel that it would be better to leave the article alone than to hack and slash at it -- but the best thing would be for a proper merger to be done. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is so heavy with persuasive rhetoric, that all the sources would need to be carefully read and evaluated, to see what the authors really meant. After that: decide whether they are good representative studies. Then decide which articles, each snippet might be squeezed into (providing they survive the preceding steps). Moreover, just because this essay contains material that the other articles don't have, this is not the same thing as saying: the other articles are in need this information. Therefore, the effort of a lot of the experienced editor's analysis will be wasted for every snippet that eventualy turns out to have no where to go. Then, reconstruct the sentence structure and syntax as to be NPOV..... Phew! Writing a good article is a bit like building a house. One doesn't start by going out and buying an assortment of used doors, windows, septic tanks , etc, and then trying to assemble them into an aesthetically pleasing and practical home, whilst all the while hoping that it complies with all the local regulations. Rather, one starts with definite plans and sources materials to suit. Trying to savage something from this article will just soak up valuable time from experienced editors that would be better invested elsewhere. --Aspro (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, this article isn't about Marijuana and the brain it's about the Effects of cannabis - it includes coverage of its effects on behaviour, pain, anxiety etc... Also, it's full of POV. Take the sentence in the lead "Despite cognitive, social as well as neurological evidence to the contrary, the existence of marijuana addiction and conversely marijuana dependency has been disputed and it is not as of yet included as an addictive disorder..." Merging a poorly referenced POV-pushing article into a good exisiting article is likely to be a time-consuming and unrewarding exercise. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:45, 5 February 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.