Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of UK members of parliament who support drug law reform


 * 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 DELETE ALL. -Splash talk 19:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

List of UK members of parliament who support drug law reform
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Perhaps the articles could be cleaned up into a simple list, with the quotes and information placed in the articles about the individual people involved, but as it stands, this needs deletion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're the same thing:
 * List of UK Peers who support drug law reform
 * List of Members of the European Parliament who support drug law reform

--Fuzzie (talk) 13:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As this article stands, it is political campaign material, and not anything approaching an encyclopedia article, or even a press article. Look at the emotive wording here: "This represents just some of pubic figure and instiutions from around the world who support reform of the pesent drug laws."!!!  I'd prefer to outright delete this, because of problems with the inherent subjectivity involved, but even if kept it certainly should be totally reformatted.  Will we see List of UK members of parliament who support euthanasia and List of UK members of parliament who oppose gay marriage?  Morwen - Talk 13:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Emphatic Delete what if they change their mind tomorrow? lol! encyclopedia should be about facts, not beliefs subject to the whim of the holder.  the.crazy.russian   vent here 13:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Morwen. JGF Wilks 13:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morwen. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  14:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * neutral As written it is riddled with POV but there is the germ of a good article in there, in that several British MPs are well known to be in favour of legalisation. others are not.  So it probably needs to be moved to a different title and the prominantly anti-legalisation ones listed as well.  OK, yes, wrong article at the wrong title, that's usually a delete from me, but I do think this has potential. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Morwen. --Ter e nce Ong 15:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet another 'ever changing list.' --BWD(talk) 15:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research, highly suscepitble to POV. Concur with Morwen on scope as there is potential for many more repititious articles by MP vote - theyworkforyou.com has voting records for foundation hospitals, top-up fees, anti-terrorism, Iraq, ID Cards, fox hunting, and gay marriage on the main page for each MP which illustrates the number of articles that should appear if this one stays.  Note that theyworkforyou does not have drug law reform and I can't think of anywhere else that would have the verifiable NPOV resourcing that would allow this article to not be OR. MLA 16:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Strong Delete as the good faith that I had assumed regarding ill-informed soapboxing appears to have been misplaced. MLA 10:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on some of the comments so far: Instead of moaning: you could help rephrase what you perceive to be POV and what you perceive to be emotive wording. After all, 108 MEP signed one declaration hence the wording to show it is incomplete -how else do you say it? If someone else can phrase it better then let them help. The list is also need to counter the comments by some, that there is little support for improvements to the existing laws -which itself is POV. Or do you want to have it both ways? Also, it is hardly (or wont be) 'indiscriminate'... And Look at all the articles listing just 'highways', etc. Why don't you put them up for deletion? Just go to list of lists and look though a few lists of things. =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Allpages/List_of As for it being untidy -it is. I am far from happy with it. There is still information to go on and if you look at the creation date  it has only just been created . Some of you might have time to sit at the computer all day but some of us have other things to do. Much of this info is being collected be people who have to pick up the pieces (e.g., social workers, probation workers, lecturers in crime prevention etc) after things go wrong from laws that badly need improving. I expect few of you ( by the way you write) have got any crack houses near you, nor have witnessed at first hand the horror of it all, or your mind might be making connections to the wider picture, about what this list represents. Have you had people drop to the floor and turn blue, would you know how to handle it? Do you know were I and all these other people views are coming from? As for the comment about any body on the lists changing their mind, it can be updated LIKE ANY OTHER ARTICLE that apt to change. These articles seem to have been picked up by people who have not thought about it, nor realised that will links in with other stuff - do they reasonably expect that whole thing to be set up at once? Finally: If you look on the first talk page of the first article created it says: ''These lists may not make sense to some people who are out of the loop until some of the other templates go on to explain the background and place the lists in context. This maybe finished by the end of the month. But because of what promises to be its eventual size and geographical and political range, the words, phrasing, syntax etc. need to be got right first. --Aspro 10:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC) So some of you haven't even bothered to read it properly.--Aspro 16:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not political journal or soapbox. Pavel Vozenilek 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft.--Isotope23 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all.  Problems include soapboxing, mistaking Wikipedia for one's webserver, indiscriminately accumulating information and WP:POV. Sandstein 18:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete all no criteria for inclusion or exclusion -- one may be hard pressed to find any politician to say that drug law is perfect as is; reform could mean anything from legalization to execution for possessors: both reform the current law British/European laws. Carlossuarez46 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic Funky Monkey 23:06, 15 March 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.