Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schedules for drugs and poisons


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 14:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

List of schedules for drugs and poisons

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

...and this is why we have categories. This isn't an article, and can never be in its current format - which is an internal link farm. This is begging to be a category - let's put it out of its misery and Categorify it (if there is such a word) - see my further comment below. Grutness...wha?  23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Urge caution - you may well be right but as the author I just though I would tell you how this list came about. I spend most of my time on disambiguation pages and came across one for schedule 1 (or maybe 2 or soemthing similar). In the course of looking into this it became obvious that schedule 1 drugs is a term used all over the world but with different meanings in different countries; many links were to the wrong country's code. This applied to schedule 2 and 3 etc. I decided that the best way round this was to have a central point where general links would arrive and the reader would simply select the country they wanted. I presume you have noticed how many articles link to this page ... and how many of these links are via schedule 1 schedule 2 ... etc. I have no emotional attachment to this page but would simply like to feel that the effects of its disposal/replacement had been considered thoroughly. You seem to know more about categories than I do so I certainly will not fight what you decide. Abtract (talk) 23:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK - that makes sense. I'm quite happy for this to be kept if others agree that it seems sensible, but I'm not quite convinced enough to withdraw this nomination - consider it a very weak delete only from me now. Looks likely it will be kept, given the other comments on this page, and I'm certainly not going to complain if it is. Grutness...wha?  09:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep based on Abtract's explanation. This is a disambiguation page so that different countries drug schedules can be kept seperate in a clear manner. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Abstract's explanation sounds quite reasonable.  Linguist At Large  00:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - categories and lists cannot duplicate each others functions. Viable, encyclopaedic list. Wily D  00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The page could certainly use fleshing out - but the concept is valid, as per Abtract. --moof (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/Thought - Could this be merged with the disambiguation page? The muffin is not subtle (talk) 20:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - Which dab page? Abtract (talk) 21:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought from your original defense of the article that there was a dab page for Schedule 1. Seeing as there isn't one though, maybe this could be made into one? (I'm new here so extra apologies if this is ridiculous) The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That would make a lot of sense - converting this into separate dab pages for Schedule 1, 2, and 3 etc. Grutness...wha?  03:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sadly it doesn't make sense. The current situation brings everyone who wants schedule 1,2,3 etc to this page for onward transmission to a country-oriented article that will help them. Individual dab pages for each schedule would all look much the same as this page and would all need maintaining separately; what's the point of that? Just to be clear, this page was created by combining the separate dab pages. Abtract (talk) 08:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe make it in to a category then? I just think it looks very untidy as it is, and it doesn't seem to conform to WPs usual layout. Or even make it in to a consolidated dab instead of just a list page. The muffin is not subtle (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As Panyd's adopter, and a sysop, I think something needs to be done about this page. Whatever it should be, it shouldn't be how it is at the moment - it doesn't conform to the Manual of Style, and perhaps a series of Disambig pages, or a complex(ish) DAB page, would be best. At the very least, it's not an article and it never can be - so it shouldn't be classed as one.Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have converted it to a set index article which may, or may not, help. Just for interest what does "Panyd's adopter" mean? Abtract (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:ADOPT. Panyd is a new user whom I am 'adopting' to show her the ropes. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Abtract's explanation makes sense.  It is a useful page and directs readers right where they want to go. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:08, 17 November 2008 (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.