Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demand reduction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Demand reduction
text is completely off topic and nowhere near NPOV, rather just a parroting of arguments against drug prohibition Reswobslc 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and improve - articles of relevant title and topic (btw, over 15 other articles link to this article) should not be deleted -- especially at the whim of those who disapprove of the subject matter. --Thoric 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because 15 articles link here doesn't mean that the content on the page is relevant to the topic. As I'm new on WP, I suspect I may have inadvertently recommended that the entire article be dropped - which is not what I mean when I say that most of the contents of the article ought to simply be removed. I wish I had better research done to put in its place. I personally feel drugs should be legalized, but I am not adding my opinions about it to the organic chemistry page, nor the White House page, or the Harvard Law School page. A page about Demand reduction should focus on explaining what Demand reduction is and perhaps talk about what governments may be doing to implement Demand reduction. Instead we have multiple uncited references to what "many" or "most" think (4x), vague uncited statements to what "can be described" and what "can be argued", as well as multiple uncited statements about what "seems to be" . None of these statements talk about Demand reduction. All these need to go, at least in favor of something that talks about the topic of Demand reduction, or at the very least, cites some source other than the author's opinion. Reswobslc 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- The entire contents of an article can be changed without its deletion, in fact it is preferable to boldly change an article than to delete it entirely. The only articles that are to be deleted are those that have no place at all in Wikipedia. --Thoric 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just because 15 articles link here doesn't mean that the content on the page is relevant to the topic. As I'm new on WP, I suspect I may have inadvertently recommended that the entire article be dropped - which is not what I mean when I say that most of the contents of the article ought to simply be removed. I wish I had better research done to put in its place. I personally feel drugs should be legalized, but I am not adding my opinions about it to the organic chemistry page, nor the White House page, or the Harvard Law School page. A page about Demand reduction should focus on explaining what Demand reduction is and perhaps talk about what governments may be doing to implement Demand reduction. Instead we have multiple uncited references to what "many" or "most" think (4x), vague uncited statements to what "can be described" and what "can be argued", as well as multiple uncited statements about what "seems to be" . None of these statements talk about Demand reduction. All these need to go, at least in favor of something that talks about the topic of Demand reduction, or at the very least, cites some source other than the author's opinion. Reswobslc 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong keep and cleanup. This is an important concept in the field of substance abuse control. Many state and federal agencies are studying and implementing demand reduction based strategies,as Reswobslc noted. Since Res thinks he "may have inadvertantly recommended the entire article be dropped" (which he in fact did) perhaps he should withdraw the nom and speedy keep? --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Withdraw nomination at least in spirit, now do I just simply remove the tags I put in, or is that something I can't do? Reswobslc 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, the fact that it is a significant anti-drug strategy used by law enforcement produces more than enough merit. --Alphachimp talk 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and cleanup, less opinion and more facts needed. What are the arguments behind demand reduction? --AndrewC 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- If kept (no opinion on my part), Rename to Demand reduction (anti-drug propaganda) and delete the redirect. An article under this title should refer to any "societally undesireable" product. (Certainly the anti-cigarette campaign in California would qualify for a mention.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I see the anti-cigarette program in Canada is mentioned. It doesn't match the (quasi-)definition in the first paragraph, though. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment However, there are now no Delete votes. Doesn't it qualify for a Speedy Keep? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
