Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Addiction suppression

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 delete. bd2412 T 01:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Addiction suppression

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

There are zero reviews on this topic on pubmed. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Addiction+suppression%22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While some treatments exist to help cope with withdrawal, the claim that some substances would be anti-addictive appears fringe, which may be why it's so difficult to find WP:MEDRS about this. There are people who claimed to have been freed from drug addiction after having lived an awakening experience assisted by hallucinogenics (some related info appears to be at Hallucinogenic#Hallucinogens_after_World_War_II). I think that this is more in culture and research than in applied medicine (and the relevant article already mentions it). —Paleo Neonate – 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this page was in fact copied from https://psychonautwiki.org/wiki/Addiction_suppression where it is published with an incompatible license CC-BY-SA-4.0. At some point in the future Wikipedia may change to such a license, but as for today it does not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:09, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know exactly zero about drug related topics, and even I have heard of this. There was a major article in Wired a few years back on the topic, and I've come across several smaller mentions since. Neonate makes the point that this is "more in culture" than applied medicine, but I'm scratching my head trying to understand what that means - the Wiki is filled with culture related articles. If there is a problem related to the presentation of the information, just fix it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to said study? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:45, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What study? Do you mean the Wired article? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Wired article is unlikely to meet WP:MEDRS, but it could help locate the underlying research. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to meet MEDRS? If this is really a cultural phenominon, meeting GNG should be enough. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a source is to write content based on it, not to meet notability guidelines. All that Tigraan is saying is that the Wired source would likely be unsuitable for supporting biomedical-related content in the article, but might be a pointer to other sources that might lead to a usable source. It's all moot of course, until the Wired article is found. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much: if it does not meet MEDRS, nothing of the current article cannot be sourced to it. It could be rewritten, sure. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Great! So why are we debating this? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because you brought up the possibility of a source in support of your "keep", but didn't give a link to verify. I would like to know what the source says to see if it might be useful in trying to salvage anything here, and I think that the closer deserves to know what the source says in evaluating the strength of your argument. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Irretrievable copyvio. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be borderline gibberish. Even if we are allowed to copy it, I don't think we should want to. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2017 (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.