Talk:2007 Jenkem moral panic

Initial Split

I split this off as the Jenkem article suffers from having a split focus. One is on the Jenkem itself which is easily confirmable through reliable sources. The other is the internet meme/explosion of the hoax in western use. My personal feeling is that the main article was getting away from the basics about Jenkem and delving more into the latter which is focusing on a hoax. Both are sourced and verifiable as seen in the reflists. This one should be focused on the muchadoo about the western hoax and the subsequent reporting of it. The original should mention this sudden explosion of use/hoad/etc but focus on Jenkem itself. spryde | talk 14:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate you wanted to make the Jenkem article shorter, I'm not sure it merits an entire article. If there's nothing new added to justify it's existence, I'm guessing it'll be put up for deletion at some point.--58.110.8.116 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we will see more about this. If nothing, this page can be summarized and remerged back into the original article. This content overwhelmed the original to the point of the whole thing being called a hoax when in fact Jenkem is real and documented. spryde | talk 14:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt this has the notability for a separate article (yet -- these things may change over time). The proper place to address the question would be a deletion discussion (where I would probably vote 'delete' at the present stage). dab (𒁳) 14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree as there seems to be numerous independent articles about this stemming from the original flux64 hoax including links to the admittance of the hoax, coverage of the hoax, and people still posting stories about the hoax. spryde | talk 17:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Previous Split Redirected

As a FYI, I redirected the previous split here. spryde | talk 17:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Just can't see any reason...

I've thought about this a little more and I cannot see any good reason to have separate articles for this topic. There is no other drug article on wikipedia that has "moral panic" branches, though there have certainly been moral panics about many other drugs. The effect is that discussion on the issue is decentralized across at least two pages - I couldn't think of a good place for me to post this, for example. I'm taking this to AFD, and will abide by whatever consensus develops there. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The afd appears not be be listed? at least the template link doesn't give an afd discussion. --Rocksanddirt 18:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you caught me in the middle of the AFD nom process. It should be up now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Jenkem moral panic. Skinwalker 18:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Drudge Report and Inside Edition

These two organizations have headlined and run the story, respectively, on Jenkem. If someone can find links to pages on these organizations' sites about Jenkem (which I haven't been able to find) that would be nice. __meco 19:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about headlined but here is drudge. spryde | talk 19:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)