Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bath salts (drug)


 * 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 Keep WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Bath salts (drug)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete - This article is one of at least three that address extremely closely related topics, including methylenedioxypyrovalerone and Ivory Wave. Suggest transferring any relevant new content (if there is any) to the scientific name article, deleting this article, and recycling the name as a redirect to the scientific name article. Metacommentary - the creator and principle editor of this article has repeatedly deleted speedy deletion and merge tags and has not yet engaged in the conversation about duplicating content vs. redirects in a way that indicates he meaningfully understands the purpose of those tags. The rationale he has repeatedly used goes like, this is what this drug is called now so this name deserves its own article. I wholeheartedly disagree with that rationale in the context of Wikipedia, and suggest he contribute to one of the existing articles and let his page stand as a redirect. Merging the other articles is a topic for separate community input.  erie lhonan  03:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep: I am the original author of the article. Bath salts is the name of the parent structure for designer drugs containing synthetic cathinones, which have effects similar to amphetamine and cocaine.   The white crystals resemble legal bathing products like epsom salts.  Bath salts are sold under a variety of product names, such as, but not limited to: hurricane charley, ivory wave, monkey dust and vanilla sky. The article is well cited and has the potential to expand, which is all that is required for an article to stay on Wikipedia. On a side note, if someone can find an image we can use in the article it would be appreciated! JunoBeach (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep As mentioned in the past discussion I informed the nominator of on the talk page for this article, bath salts can be made of things other than methylenedioxypyrovalerone.  Even the article says that: In the United States, similar descriptions have been used to describe mephedrone, methylone and methylenedioxypyrovalerone.  And bath salts is the name the media normally uses.  "Ivory Wave" has 613 Google news archive search results, while "bath salts" has 18,200.  Ivory Wave is just one type of bath salts.  It gets enough coverage on its own to justify its own article though.   D r e a m Focus  10:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Bath salts and methylenedioxypyrovalerone are not equivalent. As mentioned above, the term "bath salts" is used for a variety of different drugs, only one of which is methylenedioxypyrovalerone. I think it is a good idea to have a separate article for Bath salts (drug) because of its increasing relevance in drug control policy and common appearances in mass media.-- Ed (Edgar181) 11:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 'bath salts' is a catch all for any designer drug sold in a packet - as the references in the article show this is often cathinones but can include many different compounds. I had previously thought that a stand alone article was unnecessary, but in the last year, and increasingly since the miami cannibal attack the use of 'bath salts' in sources has skyrocketed. Each compound should have an article, but this should discuss the wider implications and reasons for them appearing. I suggested that this was created three weeks ago. Most significantly, scholarly sources are routinely using 'bath salts' as the two references that JunoBeach has linked to demonstrate. SmartSE (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep is this a joke? i don't see the needs for this article to be deleted.Ald™ ¬_¬™ 12:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously not, but it does appear to be snowing. SmartSE (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: but methylenedioxypyrovalerone, Ivory Wave, and Bath salts should be merged. Aykantspel (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note – methylenedioxypyrovalerone and Ivory Wave are specific drugs while Bath salts is about a family of drugs hence these three articles should be kept seperate. Boghog (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as explained above by Edgar181. Definitely relevant. Suggest next sysop to pass by to snow close. CharlieEchoTango ( contact ) 10:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Prioryman (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep looks to be well sourced with this name used as a subject in many independent writings. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator seems wholly absorbed in the attitude I met when trying to add material to several related articles. If anyone would like to peruse that contention, check out Talk:Ivory Wave. Some editors seem to be of the strong opinion that Wikipedia should merely echo scientific journals on topics towards which such publications have a bearing. I think the activism from these editors is detrimental to Wikipedia and should be countered forcefully as appropriate. __meco (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hadn't seen this but I just added info about the Miami incident. As you can see, it was sensible to wait to include this until more was known, since no bath salts were actually found in Eugene. You might like to read WP:OTTO to see why we should try to use academic sources rather than newspapers as well. SmartSE (talk) 13:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do understand the concern, but we, as a community, have laid out a benchmark for verifiability and established a process of vetting sources which applies uniformly across the article space. It simply isn't tenable that part of this space should be siphoned off and subjected to a different, and more exacting, standard than what goes for everything else. Of course there will be mishaps and transgressions. That's in the cards. Those may or may not be reasons for tightening our requirements, across the board. But an effort, such as this, focused on a limited scope of the article corpus, I don't find it constructive or appropriate even. __meco (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2012 (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.