Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Substance Abuse and Co-morbid Conditions


 * 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. there is no simple way to merge this content--as suggested, I urge the author to expand the existing articles  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Substance Abuse and Co-morbid Conditions

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Appears to be original research, no independent references that refer to this article. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WWGB (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads like an essay. Per WP:NOT PAPERS: not suitable for wikipedia. Jarkeld (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The article is referenced, just not using proper templates to produce inline citations. I suggest contacting the editor, making him aware of the guidelines on writing articles such as manual of style, MEDRS etc. Tagging the article with clean-up banners might also be useful. Usually I would say delete given the problems this article has but the main editor of this article seems to be new to wikipedia and also the subject matter is quite notable, so I am voting keep.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. We already have an article on Dual diagnosis, another option would be to merge content worth salvaging into the dual diagnosis article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  00:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge, Weak Keep I agree with Literaturegeek merge this article with Dual Diagnosis. The material is redundant and too specialized for Wikipedia WP:NOT PAPERS. Whether or not the article could withstand professional scrutiny is questionable. Though numerous references are provided they do not link directly to the articles content and validate the material presented.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 11:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete unwikified original research. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  01:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content other than original research into relevant pages, such as Substance abuse or Dual diagnosis, then delete the rest.--Opus 113 (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge it looks like a copy-paste job Someone65 (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - clearly original resarch, it has refs but they do not make it an article suitable for Wikipedia ukexpat (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article describes Treatment of dual conditions and Treatment of drug abuse in general, rather than simply the Dual Diagnosis. We still do not have article Treatment of drug abuse except this. This user can contribute positively in this area, unless he/she is discouraged from the participation by removing all their contributions. Not a total OR by any account.Biophys (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that Treatment of drug abuse could be a useful article, and that some of the content in this article could contribute to it. However, this article is basically a research paper. I suppose it would be possible to cut all the OR out of the article, combine its sources with others, fix the WP:CITE issues, and move it to a more appropriate title, but that seems nearly as difficult as starting such a page from scratch. If someone wants to do use this article to do that, I would suggest that it be userfied unless it is going to be done relatively quickly. I'm not sure what exactly my point is. I suppose my opinion is basically that this article seems pretty clearly unencyclopedic right now, but that it does have some information that could be useful to other articles. Your comments on the original author's user talk page are definitely good ones; if he heeds them his contributions will be far more usable. I understand that deleting the page could drive away a potentially valuable new editor, but I think that anything else that could be reasonably done to it is likely to leave it so unrecognizable that the effect may well be the same.--Opus 113 (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately no one will do anything with it, unless author can improve this himself per minimal WP standards (formatting, wikilinks and in-line refs). If he can not, this should be deleted or placed to his user space.Biophys (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2011 (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.