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. There is consensus that this specific topic isn't notable. If anyone wants to develop this towards a merger into Crime in Vatican City, or into a new article about Catholicism and cannabis, I would be happy to provide a draft in userspace. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Cannabis in Vatican City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

The article has six sources, but four are about the position of the Catholic Church (and Popes) on cannabis and one is about Italy. That leaves us with cannabis.info, which simply states that cannabis is illegal in Vatican City.

Altogether this is not the significant coverage we need for WP:GNG. It's clear that some hard work has gone into the article, which covers Catholic positions on cannabis, but that's not the article subject. Speculation on arable land or the country's only pharmacy is not particularly encyclopedic. Most fundamentally for AfD, I cannot find any useful sources which demonstrate notability of the topic. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:24, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• C Abstain - I won't vote either way as its my article, but I wou like for like to point out that there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis. This case, as it always seems to be with me though recently, is sui generis as the Vatican City State is irrevocably tied to the Holy See per se and its history as the Papal States, and we'll the article is rather self explanatory....I see no reason why this would be deleted and it would be a sore disappointment. I believe it provides a great deal of info and use, for example a cheeky tourist who thinks he can circumvent being arrested for smoking weed in the Italian Republic by visiting the Vatican. Or dorks like me.- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 20:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Well indeed their histories are linked, but the matter of law and decree is just one small area. Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted, but this was the most obvious outlier to me. What the notable members of this series, such as Cannabis in the United Kingdom, have that this article does not is a history of substantial production and usage. Even some sub-stubs such as Cannabis in Réunion document substantial recreational and ritual use of the drug, whereas in Vatican City there's no evidence provided that anyone has ever used the substance there. (Though as you say, I'm sure there's been the occasional tourist who endeavours to smoke weed on her trip to the state.) — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

 Comment: I forgot to mention this article was also peer-reviewed by @ KJP1:, whose good advice I admittedly haven't implemented yet out of sloth, but he seemed to approve of the concept, if this is worth anything.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 20:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Retitle Perhaps its time the redirect Catholicism and cannabis became its own article, and then when in a few years or whenever the article can be changed back to its current title? ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  L3X1,A merge would certainly be interesting, but the problem I thought about when I created the article is that the Vatican City State is just as sovereign as China is, and I think not treating it like other countries while acknowledging and connecting its special status violates NPOV.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 20:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Having articles "X in [country]" for only some values of [country] is not related to NPOV at all. It's related to GNG. For instance, contrast Scientology in Belgium with (non-existent, non-notable) Scientology in North Korea. The difference is that there is a substantial Scientology following in the former country, but not the latter. Trying to complete the series would be a fool's errand. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 20:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  What Bilorv said. Normally I see NPOV used as argument against this type of thing, but I agree it isn't the issue. I think for the current title, the article could only have the lede/lead portion, but if we rename it, the entire article would be appropriate. ^{Thanks, and have a}Happy 2019! from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Do you have any ideas what would be a good title for the entire subject of the article, as you think would fit?-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 21:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Catholicism and cannabis or Cannabis and Catholicism (whichever the MOS:TITLE people deem to be proper) or perhaps Catholic Views on Cannabis, but I feel one of the first two would be better, as it encompasses the current contents, A lead, dogma, and history. ^Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! ^from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Very interesting, although if I would need to merge it I don't know much about that and would probably butcher it. So far I would settle for that.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 21:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  ( edit conflict) I'm not convinced that Catholicism and cannabis is notable either. But Christianity and cannabis would be, and for the time being perhaps the material is best put in Cannabis and religion#Catholicism. I would think that this title should be deleted rather than redirected there though, as it is an implausible search target for the latter information. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  I'm a little averse to just throwing it into Christianity and cannabis/Cannabis and religion, as porting the contents of Cannabis in Vatican City in there would be bulky. ^Thanks, and have a Happy 2019! ^from L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  We'd be trimming the bits that are only about Vatican City. As the second largest religious denomination after Sunni Islam, Catholicism is entitled to a fair share of Cannabis and religion article with its 1.3 billion adherents. If it is to be a separate article, certainly Christianity and cannabis should be created before the subtopic Catholicism and cannabis. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 21:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  I don't see how weed being illegal in Vatican City isn't notable. The city-state is inherently and essentially tied to the Holy See itself, so it deserves coverage. It's more than notable, millions of people visit the Vatican every year, at least some of whom have tried or want to know about weed and its relationship with the Papacy.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 21:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  But that's just speculation. The objective criterion we use is WP:GNG and it is not met here. Burden of proof lies on those wishing to show it is notable. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 22:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  If your claim were consistent, a LOT of the Cannabis in X country articles would need to be deleted. Is marijuana policy in Vatican City really not as notable as the articles for San Marino, Sao Tome e Principe, the Cook Islands, New Caledonia (now we're just getting into dependent territories, not sovereign nations) and other tiny lands? What you're proposing ought to imply a large-reaching reform and decision about weed-related articles, not just knock off a few individual ones.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  As I said before, Perhaps there are some others in the series that I think should be deleted. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale here, but feel free to nominate any pages for deletion yourself after evaluating them according to WP:BEFORE (as I did here, but don't have time to do on 200 pages). — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 22:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Wouldn't it be far better for the site if you're correct, to try to enact a general change in policy concerning weed-related articles instead of pruning individual ones like this? I don't think OSE applies here necessarily, because in this case A LOT of other stuff exists to the extent it becomes a rule. I don't know what makes Vatican City so special a target.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  No, there is no point making a policy for such a small set of articles (a couple of hundred). There's no need, because our current policies cover it already—specifically WP:GNG, which you continue not to mention. I'll say again: I do not view Vatican City as a unique case, but as this is the third time I've made the point, I won't continue to harp on about it any further. — Bilorv _{(c) (talk)} 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  Your sharpshooting strategy here is very bizarre. I must say. Regardless, I can only settle on merging with most of the content remaining intact.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 23:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• For completeness: my opening comment at PR was "I initially thought this a rather odd topic for an article". While noting it formed part of a series, I also remarked that "the History section looks patchy. 1484 and then nothing until 1929". I think Bilorv has a valid point. If there's really nothing worth noting about cannabis use in The Vatican, or any specific state, then it is questionable as to whether an article on the topic is warranted. Another suggestion might be a section within the article, Cannabis in Italy. KJP1 ( talk) 22:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

@ KJP1: Thank you for your comment! Do you believe then, if by your suggestion the Vatican should be merged into the Italy article, should the same apply for its sister microstate by Cannabis in San Marino, which is also scant in content?-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 23:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Quite possibly, but I've not read it. Have you read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists? KJP1 ( talk) 03:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh yes right, I was linked it earlier today. Cannabis in San Marino though the article is like stub length so check it out.-- ~Sıgehelmus♗ _(Tøk) 04:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge to a new cannabis section in Crime in Vatican City, and add a single sentence regarding canabis' illegality to Vatican City#Crime. Doesn't seem to be enough to warrant a content fork. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:19, 17 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, i am confused by one of the article creator's initial statements - "there's articles for every country and its relationship to weed, see legality of cannabis.", i count 22 countries/territories in that article that are redlinked so, no, WP does not have a canabis article for every country. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, agree with the nominator that the article does not have enough appropriate sources (ie. actually about this specific subject) to warrant a standalone (i have been unable to find any and none have been forthcoming), although the above suggestions about merging/adding some info to various articles are possible, i believe this to be inappropriate as it would place too much emphasis on this issue in those articles. Coolabahapple ( talk) 03:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:31, 18 January 2019 (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.