Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amphetamines and Friendly Fire Incidents


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Amphetamines and Friendly Fire Incidents

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Previously CSd'd. It appears to be a (well disguised?) position paper. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The previous CSD was not due (directly) to content - it was an author blanking CSD, after it was pointed out that the article was problematic in its then-reference-less state. (I was the one who both called for the deletion after author blanking and had pointed author to the problem.) In other words, both the previous deletion and the primary reason for the blanking no longer apply. That's not to take any stance on the deletion discussion, just to take the weight off of the "previously CDS'd" status. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is being discussed at AN/I: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. Kevin (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork of Tarnak Farm incident Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, possibly redirect: sure seems to be a fork per Nick, not to mention some SYNTH/OR, and essentially being an essay. There might be some material worth keeping, if merged to Tarnak Farm incident and/or Amphetamine (I can't find an article on military use of stimulant drugs, but if there were, that would be the best place to redirect). There might also be value as a redirect...  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Userify if so requested by user; plain delete if not. We should not be keeping this simply to fulfill a non-Wikipedia (arguably anti-Wikipedia) aim, but userification would generally be allowed for an article of this degree of effort, to allow a user to see if he can transform it into something appropriate. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (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.