Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needle exchange economics


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 05:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Needle exchange economics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested PROD. Unencyclopedic essay presenting original research. Steamroller Assault (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC) -- This article is based strictly upon authoritative sources such as the CDC and published research studies that are referenced in the article. The rest is simple math.
 * Delete: Per nom. South Bay (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as an essay. J I P  | Talk 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to reject it on the grounds that it presents original research, please be specific about what you object to and I will see if any such objections can be resolved through further references -- Thank you for mentioning the point about "unpublished synthesis or analysis". I believe that Wikipedia takes this position because it does not want articles that are effectively "matters of opinion", such as whether gun ownership increases or decreases safety, but in this case, it really is straight math.

If the CDC days that the average cost of treating an AIDS patient is X and the lack of a needle exchange program results in Y more infections, the resulting cost will be X times Y. This not as a matter of opinion, but as factual as stating that 2 * 3 = 6.

If such arithmetic is forbidden, then I suppose the article must be deleted and I will accept your decision, but I urge you to consider carefully. Without an exchange program, tens of thousands of people will die in conditions of extreme pain, at a cost to the taxpayer of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. By allowing the article, Wikipedia can help prevent this.

If you will allow such basic arithmetic, I will be very happy to improve the article, add more references, make it more readable by splitting it into sections and make whatever other changes you believe are appropriate. RicharHMorgan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Comment. There may be several peer-reviewed journals in existence where you could submit your paper for scrutiny, but an encyclopedia is simply not the place for it. There could very well be errors, omissions and assumptions in your methodology, but it is the peer-review process, and not Wikipedia's place to make that judgement. In addition, your stated intent, "Wikipedia can help prevent this" is a definitive use of Wikipedia as a soapbox, which is also not what this project is for. I encourage you to read WP:WIS and WP:NOT for more details on what this place is about. Steamroller Assault (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  08:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic appears encyclopedic, but the current contents seems to an original synthesis designed to advance a POV not supported by the sources cited. Pcap ping  09:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencylopedic, subject matter is not notable and article is pushing a POV.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  16:49, 19 January 2010 (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.