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 - verifiability is non-negotiable, and all research in this AfD into verifiability counts against it. The existence of other sources is asserted, but their details have not been given so we can form no judgement on them (and as the credibility of the sources which have been given have been cast into doubt, such assertions count for even less than usual). Bear in mind that if a sourced article can in fact be written, this deletion of an unsourced article does not prejudice against it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable [1]--Syunrou 08:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the corporation does seem to have been involved in a fair number of legal cases surrounding cannabis use in the US, so may be borderline notable (despite low number of Google hits). However, the article is utterly appallingly bad. — QuantumEleven 09:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as what appears to be a notable part of the history of cannabis legality in America. The article needs a lot of work. --Hyperbole 20:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hyperbole, appears notable, however severly clean it up and if its not in say a month delete it. Also some sources on that case would be nice. --NuclearZer0 15:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - while the assertion of notability is made, this entry is entirely devoid of sources. Tewfik^Talk 04:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No sources whatsoever, and 26 non-Wikipedia Google hits. I would have a hard time proving that it exists, especially if we wanted reliable, notable, and verifiable sources, much less proving its importance. It's a badly written article in any case. Delete. Dmcdevit·t 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisting following remarks that this corporation might not exist. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; possible hoax? Vectro 18:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AOL user 64.12.116.203 (talk · contribs) left the following message on my talk page. Vectro 00:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know virtually nothing about Wiki, and less about HTML and so I'm sorry to barge in, but this is Laurence McKinney and Cannabis Corporation was not only real, there are plenty of references to it. That was a bad little paragraph, I have no idea who wrote it, I cleaned it up, added a ref ... why didn't you just drop my name into Google? You would have found lots of stuff .. try Google image ...there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.116.203 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 21 October 2006

• Keep and cleanup. Not a hoax. Some of the sources in the linked Google search are reliable, non-trivial, independent coverage of notable events in the biomedical, legal, and legislative fields. The sources need to be added and relevance explained. I'd start work on it now if I weren't behind an overly censorious filter that blocks most of the legitimate sources for this topic. Barno 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an example of one of these reliable sources? Dmcdevit·t 17:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • [2] is an academic paper presented at the Maxie Richards Foundation Conference, Glasgow, Oct 2003. The reference to CCA is in passing (and thus not sufficient by itself), but it refers to a noteworthy attempt at getting the USA federal drug-enforcement regimen changed in how marijuana would be controlled. There are also mainstream-media (and less-citeable special-interest media) reports which feature CCA's efforts at legal change and research into synthesis of the active component. Barno 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per lack of non-trivial independent coverage. Cynical 11:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: AOL user 64.12.116.133 (talk · contribs) added two offline citations to the article, but researching them failed to show them as valid. I have moved the questionable citations to the talk page; see my comments there. Vectro 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cynical. Valrith 20:53, 23 October 2006 (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.