Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug Policy Review Group

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 userfy to User:2829VC/Drug Policy Review Group. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Policy Review Group[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article and a couple of others seem to have been written by User:2829VC, as mostly seems to be characterised by excessive references to "Heroin Addiction, Care and Control: The British System" by H. B. Spear aka Bing Spear. There probably is useful information in these articles but I find it difficult to work out exactly what these edits are meant to achieve. Is there someone in Wikiproject Drugs who can salvage these articles. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than a couple of others! There was been virtually no coverage of the history of drug addiction treatment in this country in Wikipedia!, and the history is the reason why it is in the state it is in. This book is written by a very well know authority on exactly why it happened. I intend to write an article on him and one of two other people at the time and other institutions which haven't been covered. I have some valuable information which I haven't used yet. I'm a member, FWIW, of the Drug Policy Wiki and what I'm trying to do is listed there. The particular article is not very important to what i'm doing but they produced some reports which i've linked to the Legalise Cannabis wiki. 2829 VC 13:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've done a quick google search for HB Spear and it looks like he would meet notability quite comfortably. However, I can find very little coverage for the Drug Policy Review Group, and it seems that its biggest claim to notability by far is its association with a notable individual. Therefore, I can think of two possible ways forwards for this article: either redirect it to an article of H.B. Spear as soon as there is one and include the information in that article; or expand it if, and only if, coverage can be found in third-party sources to write about it. However, as it stands the article has very little context. Therefore, I suggest we Userfy this article until we can find a better home for the information. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what userfy means please, it's not in wikipedia AFAICT. You've seen the cannabis linked stuff I presume. I'm actually going to ring them on Monday and find out wehere their reports have been going, I can't imagine their EEC funding is being paid for nothing. I hope you also looked at my work at the Drug Policy wiki? 2829 VC 14:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC) 2829 VC 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I say 'my work' it does sound a bit pretentious, what I mean is the section I have expanded in the uk section? 2829 VC 14:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By "userfy", Chris means put it in your userspace, your sandbox. BTW, we generally call them articles, not wikis. A wiki is an entire website, of which Wikipedia is one example. :) LadyofShalott 14:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, thanks. I thought it might mean that. Thanks for your other correction as well, I'm afraid I'm new here :-) 2829 VC 18:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, "userfy" means "move it to (say) User:2829VC/Drug Policy Review Group and work on it there". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks, my sand box, I'm working on a couple of articles, there at the moment. 2829 VC 02:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not averse to putting it in my sandbox if people still have objection to it? I could include it in a bing spear article. The only link which is used AFAICT is from the legalize cannabis article and the Drug Policy Revue Group. If someone could notify me of the decision, I can move it myself, I think 2829 VC 08:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you yourself are happy for the article to be deleted from the mainspace and recreated in your user space, we can close this debate now. I suggest that Wikiproject Drugs people would be in the best position to help you with the H B Spear article. Failing that, I'm happy to help you myself, because I'm pretty sure that article would pass notability and could incorporate all of the information in the Drug Policy Review Group. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable pressure group. MLA (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy this draft until it can be improved or content can be merged to a suitable place, such as H.B. Spear. LadyofShalott 21:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.