|
#REDIRECT [[Amorium]]
===[[Demand reduction]]===
text is completely off topic and nowhere near NPOV, rather just a parroting of [[Arguments for and against drug prohibition|arguments against drug prohibition]] [[User:Reswobslc|Reswobslc]] 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and improve - articles of relevant title and topic (btw, over 15 other articles link to this article) should '''not''' be deleted -- especially at the whim of those who disapprove of the subject matter. --[[User:Thoric|Thoric]] 22:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Comment''' Just because 15 articles link here doesn't mean that the content on the page is relevant to the topic. As I'm new on WP, I suspect I may have inadvertently recommended that the entire article be dropped - which is not what I mean when I say that most of the contents of the article ought to simply be removed. I wish I had better research done to put in its place. I personally feel drugs should be legalized, but I am not adding my opinions about it to the [[organic chemistry]] page, nor the [[White House]] page, or the [[Harvard Law School]] page. A page about Demand reduction should focus on explaining what Demand reduction is and perhaps talk about what governments may be doing to implement Demand reduction. Instead we have multiple uncited references to what "many" or "most" think (4x), vague uncited statements to what "can be described" and what "can be argued", as well as multiple uncited statements about what "seems to be" . None of these statements talk about Demand reduction. All these need to go, at least in favor of something that talks about the topic of Demand reduction, or at the very least, cites some source other than the author's opinion. [[User:Reswobslc|Reswobslc]] 23:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
***The entire contents of an article can be changed without its deletion, in fact it is preferable to boldly change an article than to delete it entirely. The only articles that are to be deleted are those that have no place at all in Wikipedia. --[[User:Thoric|Thoric]] 15:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' and '''cleanup'''. This is an important concept in the field of substance abuse control. Many state and federal agencies are studying and implementing demand reduction based strategies,as Reswobslc noted. Since Res thinks he "may have inadvertantly recommended the entire article be dropped" (which he in fact did) perhaps he should withdraw the nom and speedy keep? --[[User:Nscheffey|<font color="#000080" face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><strong>N</strong></font><font color="#FF0000" face="Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif"><strong>scheffey</strong></font>]]<sup>([[User_talk:Nscheffey|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/Nscheffey|C]])</Sup> 06:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
**'''Withdraw nomination''' at least in spirit, now do I just simply remove the tags I put in, or is that something I can't do? [[User:Reswobslc|Reswobslc]] 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', the fact that it is a significant anti-drug strategy used by law enforcement produces more than enough merit. --[[User:Alphachimp|<font color="Maroon">'''Alphachimp'''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Alphachimp|'''<font color="Blue">talk</font>''']]</sup> 07:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' and '''cleanup''', less opinion and more facts needed. What are the arguments behind demand reduction? --[[User:AndrewC|AndrewC]] 08:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
*If kept (no opinion on my part), '''Rename''' to [[Demand reduction (anti-drug propaganda)]] and '''delete''' the redirect. An article under this title should refer to '''any''' "societally undesireable" product. (Certainly the anti-cigarette campaign in California would qualify for a mention.) — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] | [[User_talk:Arthur_Rubin|(talk)]] 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
| 