Talk:Codeine dependence

Deletion Proposed
Article has been solely written by what looks like, the owner of the aforementioned website. Severe conflict of interest, and a pretty rubbish article at that... It doesn't belong here IMHO Dvmedis (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for Deletion to be stayed
We are trying to raise awareness and provide practical help and advice to people with painkiller dependency. We feel WikipediA is an important resource to provide basic first-line information. We are willing to rewrite to address any complaints but, as we're new to all this, practical help would be greatly appreciated rather than a summary deletion request. Marksedwards —Preceding undated comment added 08:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a soapbox to raise awareness, it is solely an encyclopedia. You have gone and blown whatever chance you had with me in rectifying this by even stating that! All content must be citable (sourced), and encylopedic.

I have forwarded this for deletion review, as, unless it is given a serious and complete rewrite (as in, the whole thing started from scratch AND given citations, I believe this should be deleted.) Dvmedis (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi... I was attracted to this page by Dvmedis's mention at Deletion Review. The situation is that Dvmedis is welcome to bring the matter to the Articles for Deletion page, where Wikipedians will attempt to establish a consensus. If that happens, then in my opinion it's likely that this page would be considered not notable on the grounds that there is insufficient mention of the organisation in reliable sources.  In effect, the article as it stands would fall foul of our rules designed to prevent Wikipedia from being used for promotional purposes. However, in my opinion going to AfD would be a completely unnecessary step.  I believe that the subject of codeine addiction is highly notable and thoroughly worthy of an article on Wikipedia.  The problem here is that this article is about CodeineFree the organisation instead of being about codeine addiction. I would suggest that this could be most amicably resolved if the two of you would collaborate on writing an article called Codeine addiction, linked from the main Codeine page. Some mention of CodeineFree the organisation would be appropriate on such a page, I think, provided the article was basically about the addiction and clearly not an advertisement for CodeineFree the organisation. Wikipedia has guidelines for handling "noble causes" such as this one, which you're welcome to read at WP:NOBLECAUSE. If you decide to do this, I would be delighted to help you.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Working on new page
Thankyou, we will work on a new page as per your direction. Marksedwards
 * Excellent. If both of you agree to this, then I propose to move and redirect this page to Codeine addiction so that you may begin a scholarly article on the subject using this page as a starting point.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it be appropriate to rewrite the CodeineFree page to be in a similar style as Save the children (Another charity I work with) as well as working on a new Codeine addiction?Marksedwards


 * I think the issue is that Wikipedia lacks a scholarly article on the subject of codeine addiction, which in my opinion is a much more urgent omission than an article on CodeineFree the cause, and should take priority. Most contributions to Wikipedia are welcome, but an important issue with CodeineFree the cause is a difficulty with sources. Proper reliable sources for an article on a British charity would be the BBC, the Times or other journalistic organisations with a similar reputation for integrity and fact-checking.  (My own preferred charity does not have a Wikipedia article for this precise reason). My advice would be first to finish the codeine addiction page to a high standard (because CodeineFree the charity's publications would be a reliable source for that page, and hence some mention of CodeineFree the charity would be appropriate there).  Then you would add mention of CodeineFree to Wikipedia's lists of charities, hoping that in the fullness of time, it receives more substantial coverage in reliable sources (or an article in another encyclopaedia, or some other clear evidence that CodeineFree the charity is independently notable). I think that a separate article on CodeineFree the charity, rather than on the subject of codeine addiction, would at this stage fall foul of Wikipedia's guidelines that are designed to protect us from being used for promotional purposes.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Page move
Since other users have not replied, I have moved this page to Codeine dependence (selecting this title rather than "Codeine addiction") on the basis of local consensus. See WP:SILENCE.

CodeineFree and Codeine addiction both redirect to here for the moment. This should now become a scholarly article about the addiction rather than the cause.

Products containing codeine
What is the purpose of naming the products containing codeine? Are they British pharmaceuticals? American? Australian? It's not even mentioned in the article. Litawor (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)