Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug abuse in India

Drug abuse in India

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Drug abuse in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

ESSAY. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 13:22, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: Copy of the 2012 Version of Crime in India. Nobody (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
• Keep - Article is tagged as a stub, and that is what it contains: basic info that begs for expansion based on lots and lots of readily-available WP:RS. I see no question that the subject has ample notability, and there are valid, verifiable sources already in the article. I am not prepared to to offer a specific WP:THREE for future expansion (will add to my to-do list), but gScholar provides a massive set of India-specific drug use/abuse scholarship. Data and research from Goa alone could make a good article. Was WP:BEFORE done on this nomination? I agree the article is in terrible shape, but this feels very much like a WP:DINC discussion. Once AfD is complete, I'll also recommend on the TALK that we rename to Drug ''use'' in India as a wider and more accurate term. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  WP:BEFORE isn't relevant to the nomination. It's an ESSAY and WP:SYNTH as it stands, not an encyclopedic article. And as mentioned above, it seems to be a copy of a very old version of Crime in India, which begs the question, why is someone re-creating old versions of articles? Additionally, as it's a copy paste, then it's also a copyvio as there's no correct attibution in copy-paste moves. Maybe it should be speedied instead. The best that could happen here is it's blanked and moved to draft space. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 23:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

  I was not aware that there were AfDs that were not subject to the minimum requirements of WP:BEFORE. Can you point me to that policy/guideline, please? It would help me if you could explain how you see WP:SYNTH applying here, as the cited sources seem to support the text pretty clearly. What am I missing? Please also explain your reference to WP:COPYVIO (if copied from an old Wikipedia page, was that entire page copied from a source verbatim?) and WP:SPEEDY (I don't see any of the 39 criteria applying here). Right now, there does not appear to be a single policy-based reason for deletion, and it looks more and more like the only rationale for the AfD is entirely rebutted by WP:DINC (or perhaps WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  You're offering a red herring. The rationale isn't based on lack of sources, but on the lack of an ARTICLE. It's not my job to teach you how to read and understand policies here, and I explained the COPYVIO and lack of attribution via copy-paste move above. Your willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning won't help your "keep" argument. If you think an article is warranted, then rewrite it as an article WITHOUT an unattributed cut-paste move copyvio of an 11 year old version of another article. - The literary leader of the age ✉ 15:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  I am sorry if you misunderstood my questions. I was not asking you to explain policies; I am very familiar with them, and I quoted the ones that I feel are applicable. I will take your statements in order.

  1. It is not a good article, but saying there is a lack of an ARTICLE is not helpful. The article exists, contains info on the subject, and contains three relevant, reliable sources cited in appropriate places. It needs a LOT more sourcing and plenty of work, but AfD is not for cleanup.
  2. You have not actually explained your rationale for applying WP:COPYVIO, you've just kept using the term. COPYVIO is entirely and exclusively about copyright violations, which can only exist if this article (or the original) replicated text verbatim from sources. Can you explain which part(s) of the article misuse copyrighted information?
  3. Phrases like willful ignorance, casting of aspersions and sealioning are unhelpful an incivil, but I'll address them (though I would request that you strike them to show that you are willing to assume good faith). 3a: The nomination doesn't say why the article should be deleted except the word, 'ESSAY'. If you meant WP:NOTESSAY, my question is not willful ignorance as the article doesn't seem to contain an editor's particular feelings about a topic. If you meant something else, please explain it. 3b: Can you please be specific on aspersions? I cast none that I can see, and I've reread my posts repeatedly search for such. 3c: Sealioning is asking questions that have already been answered, and I've asked my questions because they haven't been. You have not explained what copyright was violated, what was synthesised from sources, or which speedy-deletion reason applies.

  At this point, and especially considering the tone of you preceding response, it seems like you're saying that you don't like the article and it should thus be deleted. That is opinion, not policy. Please explain which policies and/or guidelines require this article's deletion (preferably without personal attacks). Thanking You in Advance, Last1in (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Merge with Crime in India. I think there is no need of a separate article unless someone can expand this. Draftication is also a better option. 111.92.123.60 (talk) 18:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

  Keep the page deserves a different page. The Crime in India page cannot contain hundreds of crimes, and it will be confusing.Rkyadavdhruv (talk) 07:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)