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. 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]

Hard and soft drugs[edit]

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,

It is a noteworthy term of both official and casual discourse
It is generally accurate (and easily fixed where inaccurate)
The Wikipedia articles to which it is linked are amply sourced
The one request for citation re caffeine is reasonable, and likely easy to satisfy [see previous point].
It violates neither WP:NPOV nor WP:OR in any significant way.
It cross-references other related topics
It is linked to by many other articles

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,

No argument supported by examples has been made to delete it, therefore,
One cannot assess the effort to fix it, and compare it to the harm of deleting it

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),

The distinctions between hard and soft drugs
The ambiguities and limits of such distinctions
The role of these distinctions in Drug policy of the Netherlands
The role of these distinctions in public policy in general
The role of these distinctions in casual discourse

-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]

No original research or POV issues here. The distinction (at least in the Netherlands) is made by law, so there's no personal opinion or guessing involved in the distinction. I am surprised to see alcohol in the hard drugs column, though, if that is true, it's the only hard drug not under severe restrictions. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The number one problem can easily be fixed, just by adding verifiable sources. There are many cases where the problem of "original research" is actually a problem of failing to say where one got the information. This was tolerated more often in the early days of Wikipedia, but less so now. One should never write an article with the belief that "everybody knows this". If everybody does know that marijuana is "soft" and that meth is "hard", then they wouldn't need to look here. This should be one of the easiest things in the world to find sources for. While googling for sources is fine, it's even better to do a Google books search. Since the terms hard drugs and soft drugs redirect here, I think this is a worthwhile topic that just hasn't been annotated. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. We do not accept sourcing by referring to a WP page that has sourcing (though I have never understood why, if it's done honestly), so you need to place at least key sources for the definitions here. DGG (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the "don't source to another Wikipedia article" rule is because all articles can continue to be edited. Ideally, if one is using a sourced fact from another article, the reference can be copied and pasted as well. In other words, without much more effort, one can make a better article and uphold Wikipedia's quality. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drug policy is such a wide political issue in the Netherlands that I'd be surprised if there's no sources to be found at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Needs internal sourcing, but this is a viable topic. However if this topic is already covered in another article, then a decision needs to be made whether to remove references in those articles and link to this one as a break-out in that case. 23skidoo (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and improve. Ample sources can be brought up from the articles referenced by the article in question. Some categorizations should be reviewed, and be shown to vary, but the Netherlands drug policy should be an anchor. Some decrufting needed due to previous opinion-wrestling. (See other reasons above). -SM 03:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

'Keep and renominate. Clearly, the article is going to be kept; but somehow I have a feeling that it isn't going to be improved. I will say that I have no interest in attempting a fix. If it's still unchanged in a few months, bring it back again. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up - well known terms used (not ideal ones but still, seen in press etc.

Changed to MERGE to some subsection under Prohibition (drugs) - Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:38, 14 December 2008 (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.