Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharmacological dissidence


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Pharmacological dissidence
This is just a soapbox rant, not a coherent article, created by a user adding similar soapbox rants in other areas of Wikipedia. Ben W Bell  talk  06:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ben W Bell is beligerating against me and not assuming good faith in my contributions. I protest! He is the soapbox ranter, but for the worst causes. Drcaldev 07:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Drcaldev (talk • contribs) is the creator of the article that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Delete Seems to be 100% original research, unverified and a google search produces only one hit, which is this article. Stu   ’Bout ye!  08:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If the article were original research, then how comes it just recalls the opinion of Szasz, Chomsky, Escohotado. How many results does google give for those guys? Why don´t you follow the links to the proponents´s articles? Drcaldev 09:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"War on certain drugs" retrieves 1140 results on Google. "Disidencia farmacológica" (spanish term coined by Escohotado) retrieves 8 results in Google. Drcaldev 09:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic WP:OR. Erechtheus 10:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as stub. It has some references and links that doesn´t fit with supossedly original research. 200.91.136.129 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: User:200.91.136.129 and User:Drcaldev appear to be the same user. Ben W Bell   talk  10:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm in favour of keeping the article, but it would require a lot of clean-up. User:165.86.71.20 10:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Above comment was also posted by . NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The comment by 165.86.71.20 was posted by its author in the discussion page of pharmacological dissidence. Drcaldev 05:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. No Google hits, Chomsky link does not use "dissidence" or anything resembling it. WP:OR,should go. Fram 11:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or maybe merge with drug use, drug trafficing, or some such article. Needs MAJOR cleanup, mostly OR with a large helping of POV.L0b0t 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Stu. This article and WP:V are two trains passing in the night. --Aaron 17:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete This seems more like an exposition than an encyclopedic article. HighInBC 14:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Search "Drug War dissent"
A search for "drug war dissent" returns 58 hits in google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcaldev (talk • contribs)


 * Comment Drcaldev has created an article on an "alternative name" to this article's subject over at Drug War dissent. Should we AfD/speedy that one too? NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 04:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I think so. It's placing it as an alternate name for Pharmacological dissidence and unverified neologism. Ben W Bell   talk  06:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky, whom you should read before voting on issues you evidently ignore, says: "US domestic drug policy does not carry out its stated goals, and policymakers are well aware of that. If it isn't about reducing substance abuse, what is it about? It is reasonably clear, both from current actions and the historical record, that substances tend to be criminalized when they are associated with the so-called dangerous classes, that the criminalization of certain substances is a technique of social control". Chomsky on http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/223/noamchomsky.shtml

I ask for someone with knowledge of the matter to discuss. Ignorance brings censorhip and censorship preserves more ignorance. That's some vice. It would transform wikipedia in Hawkypedia. Are only prohibionists and scared propaganda victims interested in this very important issue? Drcaldev 05:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No incivility and personal remarks please. You are creating an article with a title no one uses, which makes it original research from the start. If Chomsky criticizes the War on Drugs, add that to the article War on Drugs. What we want is articles on neutral, widely used terms, which present both sides of the argument (if there is an argument, like in this case). What we don't want is people using Wikipedia as their soapbox, not even when it is a sourced soapbox. Please read WP:NOT, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Chomsky is not talking about "pharmacological dissidence", that is a term you seem to have invented, and that is the main problem with this article. Censorship has nothing to do with it. Fram 07:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if you read the article you will note it adscribes the actual coining of the term to Antonio Escohotado. So it´s not original. I´ll put the quotation with page number soon, but searching in spanish in google for "disidencia farmacológica" brings results, so the term can´t be invented by me, can it? And an american equivalent (though less academic in its formulation) is Drug War dissent, which gives 58 results in google...

The adjective pharmacological with the substantive dissidence are a possible and perfectly understandable description for certain political position, not original of mine, and which I try to describe in some detail.

And Chomsky doesn´t talk about pharmacological dissidence, he demonstrates it in his argumentation against drug war propaganda and strategies. He is called a dissident and he deals with pharmacological issues, doesn´t him? Drcaldev 07:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete soapboxing and original research. Drcaldev risks invoking the wrath of the Rouge admins. Gazpacho 09:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. POV soapboxing and original research. -- Necrothesp 09:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, and per Drcaldev's google research. bikeable (talk) 20:00, 30 September 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.