The result was keep. Though, Casliber's idea of a merge has merit, this is the only real option for closure here. Black Kite 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like the article is entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV. Jomasecu ( T• C) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the notice. I did not create the article, actually, so much as merge two others which had become mutually redundant. Although I prefer the last revision I edited to the current one, I still think AfD is inappropriate, and the worst harm to the article has been the opinion-warring which it has attracted.
The article should be retained,
Finally, I cannot help but notice you have asserted entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV, without a single example, which is itself worrying. Deletion should not be entered into so lightly. So, to the above list of reasons, I must add,
Among others, the following points make the topic itself noteworthy (and so article-worthy, i.e. if the article didn't exist, one would have to write it),
-SM 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm new at this. Reading the article, it seemed impossible to concretely categorize drugs as such in a way that satisfies neutrality, and the article lacks any sources to back up the categories. Perhaps I misunderstood the scope of the OR rules. It also had a neutrality/factual accuracy dispute tag on it that was in place for a year, and did not appear resolved. Apologies if I've overstepped here. — Jomasecu ( T• C) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Though, Casliber's idea of a merge has merit, this is the only real option for closure here. Black Kite 00:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems like the article is entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV. Jomasecu ( T• C) 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Thank you for the notice. I did not create the article, actually, so much as merge two others which had become mutually redundant. Although I prefer the last revision I edited to the current one, I still think AfD is inappropriate, and the worst harm to the article has been the opinion-warring which it has attracted.
The article should be retained,
Finally, I cannot help but notice you have asserted entirely original research, and the topic seems incompatible with reliable sources/NPOV, without a single example, which is itself worrying. Deletion should not be entered into so lightly. So, to the above list of reasons, I must add,
Among others, the following points make the topic itself noteworthy (and so article-worthy, i.e. if the article didn't exist, one would have to write it),
-SM 02:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm new at this. Reading the article, it seemed impossible to concretely categorize drugs as such in a way that satisfies neutrality, and the article lacks any sources to back up the categories. Perhaps I misunderstood the scope of the OR rules. It also had a neutrality/factual accuracy dispute tag on it that was in place for a year, and did not appear resolved. Apologies if I've overstepped here. — Jomasecu ( T• C) 04:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply