Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responsible drug use (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. The keep arguments at the end are somewhat weak; one is WP:NOTAVOTE, and the other does not provide a valid reason for retention. As for merging, there is no consensus over whether the target should be Recreational drug use or Harm reduction. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Responsible drug use
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I redirected this POV essay to Recreational drug use and was reverted. The article is so bad it would require a complete rewrite to salvage, but the topic is close enough to Recreational drug use that it does not seem necessary to have a separate article. ⟳ ausa کui × 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect as nominator. ⟳ ausa کui × 18:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's unnecessary. This is not a vote, and we know what you think should happen from the nomination. The merger target suggested in the previous AFD discussion was harm reduction, not recreational drug use, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I often nominate articles to AFD where I don't want to delete them. ⟳ ausa کui × 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The proper forum for such a discussion as you describe, unpronounceably named(?) person, is RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP An article about a social movement with a POV does not define a POV article, else you'd have to delete the one on U.S. Republicans. This is an article about a momevement which is attempting to make recreational drug use safer for both user and society, something like an article on teenager condom use advocates, or seat-belt advocacy groups in the days when seatbelt use was optional (these guys did their job too well). It really doesn't have the focus as recreational drug use, which is interested in the various drugs and what they do, and doesn't give an ethical dang. It doesn't duplicate material. Yes, it's always possible to merge articles. But for articles which seem likely to grow larger as time (large enought to consider a split) it's a waste of time merging them, just as much as it's a waste of time going around and stamping out stubs by doing the same (which I've seen more than one war over). Give Wikipedia room to grow already.  S  B Harris 20:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or mergeThis movement seems notable enough to merit inclusion, if not its own page then in a mainpage on drug use. I think if more references can be found to support it it could stand on its own. And as far as AfD goes, if someone wants to merge an article they can always tag it so instead of for AfD.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Recuse because I've spent too long working in youth offending teams and drug strategy units to be entirely objective about this, but as a comment and not a !vote, DGG's recommendation in the last AfD is extremely sensible.— S Marshall  Talk</sup / Cont  23:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let experience with minors influence you, since this article really doesn't apply to them. We wouldn't let a child fly in the space shuttle or climb Mt. Everest. That doesn't mean adults cannot do these things responsibly (even if not in complete safety). S  B Harris 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. More often than not, it's the parents who're the users, mate (which is why the kids go off the rails).— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, "harm reduction" isn't a "social movement" in the UK. It is, or was, official local authority strategy, brought in under Tony Blair.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  23:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish people could practice what that page states. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I mean not to attack your view, and I can see where you are coming from. However, if I have read correctly, you seem to have argued for the retention of the article because you agree with the article's opinion.  I am sorry if I am wrong, but I can't see additional reasoning beyond that.  If I am correct, then I do not think your reason is valid.  I intend that as no slur, and I am still rusty at AFDs after my hiatus, but looking through AFD material it seems that just as in 2007 agreeing with the article's opinion is not a valid keep reason.  Thank you in advance for any clarification. Otumba (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to harm reduction Keep Taking S Marshall's unused vote to vote twice. No? Ok. Anarchangel (talk) 04:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. -- &oelig; &trade; 19:44, 15 July 2009 (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.