Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political economy of drugs


 * 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 as it is; will move to the creator's or anyone else's userspace on request so the material which is verifiable can be sourced and merged wherever appropriate. --Sam Blanning(talk) 23:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Political economy of drugs


Thanks everyone for your help...I would love to merge this article, but am a little unsure of how to do so. Any thoughts would be welcome. Also, thanks for all of the encouraging comments. Any ideas on how to properly Wikify this would be helpful. Sixthsense1 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I prodded this back when it was just a little essaylet. Now it's a full-blown personal essay. Not badly written, but unencyclopedic and editorializing. Opabinia regalis 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Xdenizen 01:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, a soapbox. Unsearchable title (56 ghits   for the phrase "Political economy of drugs" outside of references to the book "The Political Economy of Drugs in the Caribbean"). --  I sl a y So lo mo n  |  t a l k  02:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Interestng but not right for Wikipedia. Violates WP:OR meshach 07:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - creator's only contribution is to this article. Trebor 07:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - How is this relevant? WP:ITIS, the number of edits does not determine the quality of edits. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment perhaps this should just be re-written in a more encyclopedic manner. Atlantis Hawk 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge and don't bite the newbies. No-one had offered the author the "five pillars of WP" advice until today. A fair part of this material would add value to Recreational drug use. Mereda 10:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a personal essay. J I P  | Talk 10:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mereda. -  SpLoT  / (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Add Cites It is a good article and a lot of the information can be cited. There was also obviously a lot of work put into it. It seems to be a shame to delete the effort when it could be changed for the better. CraigMonroe 13:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. The immediately preceding poster notes that the article contains a lot of work. True. So does any newspaper editorial, but we wouldn't include those. Clear violation of guidelines - surprised this isn't 'speedy'. WMMartin 13:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge - I'm not surprised this isn't speedy. For one, it doesn't qualify.  For another, it contains a good deal of information which will increase the quality of the Recreational drug use article when the two are merged and the info is cited.  →Bobby ← 14:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge, some information are useful, but most are not. The merge to Recreational drug use will improve the article. --Ter e nce Ong (C 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete most of it, rewrite and merge the rest to the Recreational drug use. Gimlei 15:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to userspace in the interest of not biting people; and explain to the creator what's wrong with it and what they can do better. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs)
 * Delete Original research is not encyclopedic. Delete, and only merge that which can be cited. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep & rewrite An essay is not original research - a paper is. If you read through it briefly you will note that most of it saying what other researchers found, with papers quoted at the very end. All it needs is a change in the introduction, maybe the tone and more formal referencing system. If the papers quoted at the bottom are available at libraries, this should not prove too difficult. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge with substantial trimming; article could factually review the approach of economic anthropology to illegal drugs and drug addiction. 7 November 2006
 * userfy and tell user how to include cited content in existing articles. Second choice: delete. Guy 23:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject matter is interesting, but not singularly notable enough to warrant its own article. The "gist" of the article could be useful in Recreational drug use per above, but there's far too much wrong with it in my mind to simply Merge. This needs to be started from the ground up to look more encyclopedic and less like an essay written for a Liberal Arts course. JGardner 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge into relevant article. --Howrealisreal 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are major issues related to the organization of the article but there is potential to serve as a good article.
 * 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.