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) reply
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) reply
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
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.
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) reply
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) reply
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
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.