Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug policy

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 keep. Most arguments for deletion (that the content is bad) are unpersuasive. While the content at the time of nomination may have been inappropriate, the article has now been rewritten and only one person contests that the topic as such is encyclopedic. Sandstein (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Drug policy

Drug policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is only a POV of one man about drug policy and addiction. It should be either scrapped and rewritten, or else redirected back to Prohibition (drugs) as it was before. As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general. NJGW (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete not even an integral article, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Change it back to redirect. Chimeric Glider (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep and rewrite I feel that there is strong need for this article on Wikipedia. So far, two other articles, War on Drugs and Prohibition (drugs), have been used to cover drug policy in general. However, using War on Drugs as a synomym for Drug policy is POV, systemically biased, and factually inaccurate, since "War on Drugs" only refers to a specific drug policy lead by the United States since 1972. Also, using the article Prohibition (drugs) to cover general drug policy topics is factually inaccurate and POV, since prohibition is only one aspect of drug policy that is often used in conjuction with other strategies (eg. treatment and prevention). Calling that article "Prohibition" gives the prohibition aspect of drug policy undue weight. I have actually suggested renaming that article, but I think it is better to keep it and make sure it is stricly about the prohibition aspect of drug policy, while moving other aspects to Drug policy.

The author actually started this article on my suggestion, after he contributed drug-policy related material that belonged neither in War on drugs nor in Prohibition (drugs). What he didn't do though, was to write a lead to introduce the topic before pasting that material. I have tried to make the article a bit more balanced by writing a lead and starting a section about individual countries, and have also merged some material from Prohibition (drugs). I don't think we need to delete the material he wrote. It would be better to move it to a new article Drug policy of Sweden and to include a brief summary here. --Cambrasa confab 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The material that he wrote is already at another article: Nils Bejerot. The author has also tried numerous times to include the material at Cannabis (drug)‎. It seems the author has a narrow focus, and a wp:coi, as illustrated by this quote on their talk page. If a page is to remain at Drug policy, perhaps more seasoned editors should be in charge of its rewrite. NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Bejerot's and the present Swedish government's view has never been that drug policy is equal to only prohibitions. This is also mentioned in the text. The "follow up" in the text is normally done by a social worker employed by the local Social Services board. Parts of Bejerot's different comments in the US. war on drugs is less relevant i an articel about The drug policy of Sweden and more material of another type is needed.. The article Nils Bejerot is different. And I guess that the parts with comments about the U.S war on drugs is of interest. Dala11a (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: I am sympathetic to specific articles: Drug policy in the United Kingdom, Drug policy in south Asia ... as the situations warrant. A generic "drug policy" article would be overwhelmingly huge and indiscriminate.  Ravenswing  02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree. It doesn't have to be huge because it would just summarise the most important points of drug policy. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia, isn't it? We have other articles on "huge and indiscriminate" topics like Health care. Also, it is good to have an article where all the individual contries' drug policies are listed and briefly explained. --Cambrasa confab 02:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, but remove the Nils Bejerot section. This appears to be two different articles. There should be a summary article on drug policy that covers a wide range of policies, from libertarian views to criminalizations and from rehab-based punishments to death penalty-based punishments and all areas in between. Seeing how the drug situation is handled differently in places like Amsterdam versus Singapore, for example, is quite important, and under a heading like Drug policy can be presented under a neutral POV, while under a War on Drugs or a Drug Prohibition cannot be. Referencing Ravenswing's suggestion, yes, there should be some specific articles for larger or more significant countries, but this article could be a central linking spot for them. The Nils Bejerot section should be a separate article, either under Nils Bejerot or Drug Policy in Sweden. Also, it reads like an essay. Eauhomme (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but remove the Nils Bejerot section per Eauhomme. But I additionally think the Bejerot section should be completely rewritten before insertion in a Sweden-only article. Ssteinberger (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• comment 1) I advise anybody to read the talk page for Drug policy

2) "As of now it is not a page about drug policy in general" Yes, but the page was started only a few days ago. Rome was not built in one day. One person has made a lot of complains about the text, compare talk page. I suggested that he should enter a subsection with critics. He refused. I have earlier today asked for a third opinion according to Wipedia rules for conflict solution. This is the correct way.

3) Redirection of Drug policy to Drug Prohibition is not correct. That is really POV. A drug policy can include many other things than prohibitions.

4) The original start of the article included a text abut that different section should inform a different views on Drug policy. For the moment only one section exist but as I have explained above is there reasons for that.Dala11a (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

reply A "lead" section did exist, but was a todo list with no context, so I moved it to the talk section. This is at best a definition (drug policy is a government's or institution's policy on drugs), not an encyclopedia article. Interesting that although Dala11a claims that the redirect to Drug prohibition is incorrect, al l the material inserted upto that point was about prohibition issues in Sweeden (and one man's influence on those policies). NJGW (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The author just reinserted the todo list:

This page was started with the goal that it it can have a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis(drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country. It is to be hoped that each section can give a presentation of a specific policy. The articel is still under construction. Please feel free to start a new section about a different and important view on Drug Policy, of course including sources according to Wikipedia rules etc. not just your own opinion.

NJGW (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• 'Reply' To Eauhomme and others: If you want to write about why the Swedish drug policy differ from so many other countries it is necessary to write about Bejerot and his ideas. In his active days he educated almost every police officer in Sweden about drugs and hold 2 days courses for 100 000 participants. The same conclusions is made by UNODC. They have raised the Swedish example as one of more general interest. In general: A risk with a section for every country is that it will be huge (there are many countries) or that it include many sections with text without content or a biased content or unspecified claims about the text. To Steinberg: Specify your claim, I have ask before to specify your claims in the articles talk page.Dala11a (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Dala11a Understood, except that such an article would not have a generic title like Drug policy. It would be more appropriate for an article like Drug policy to have a section on Sweden, with a brief mention of Bejerot, a teaser on why his ideas are notable, and a link to a larger article. Eauhomme (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)n

• 'Reply to Eauhomme' I feel sympathy with your last statement but I need time for to find a solution that don't lose the content etc. Dala11a (talk) 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• comment per the discussion above, I have moved all the Nils Bejerot info to the Nils Bejerot page. I think the page should now be moved to Drug policies by country, and the Drug policy page should be a disambig page, as the only thing left to put there would be a short definition (which would be covered by the lead at D. pol. by country). NJGW (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to NJGW I is of course possible to have a page called Drug policy by country. But since there are many countries will the text about each country bee limited in Drug policy by country. It is of course possible to have Drug policy as a disambig page. But there is still another angel on drug policy that is not suitable or relevant for an articel about one single person on or about a specific country. Compare with my original to do list. So do you have any suggestions for a headline for that article? Or is it just that you don't want to have that article?Dala11a (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply The todo list I believe you are referring to was to discuss: What is possible; How is carried out: what methods are used and in what mix; and Why is it done, what is the theory about addiction behind the anti-drug policy; as well as a broader view than for example Prohibition (drugs) ,War on drugs, Cannabis (drug) or Legal history of marijuana in the United States or articles about the Drug policy in a specific country.

First, I think that "how is [policy] carried out" and "why is it done" are issues which belong in the sections/articles for individual nations, and if those sections/articles are numerous enough, then a small summery of these different policies would become useful, but that still belongs in Drug policy by country. "What is possible" sounds like an essay, and might be difficult without venturing into OR territory, but maybe you can clarify what you have in mind for such a section/article. Similarly, I'm not sure what you mean by "a broader view than [other articles]." So far that is not what you have been working on/towards, so if you give us some example of what you mean we can give more meaningful opinions. NJGW (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to NJGW: As I already have replied above, a solutin is not fixed immediately. What is possible a not necessary an essay. The present Tree strike law in the US. seems (?) to be based on the assumption that a person with tree drug offenses is not possible to treat (other people knows more about the tree strike laws). Other countries have a different official view. There must bee traceable sources about that. And so on. Dala11a (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2008 (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.