Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pharmacy law and ethics

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. Sandstein 19:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacy law and ethics

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

This article has previously had an endorsed PROD but was removed by the page creator (and only major editor) without a reason being given.

Parts of this article contravene WP:NOT:

The raw laws contravene WP:NOTREPOSITORY
Definitions of words in Terminology contravenes WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. These sections should be removed and if required a link included to the entry about the word.

Perhaps a merge/redirect to Pharmacy would be appropriate? Callanecc (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify and move to Pharmacy law or regulation of pharmacies - this could be a decent article, but the current article essentially re-states a few laws that regulate pharmacies, and builds an essay from that. Bearian (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without a redirect for many reasons. First, reproducing entire sections of law code is inappropriate for an encyclopedia; there are other places on the Intenet where people should go for such information. As Callanecc notes, Wikipedia is not a repository for this type of stuff. Second, the article is mis-titled, it should have been called Pharmacy law in Bangladesh since that is the only set of laws it talks about. (Did the other commentators here not notice that?) Third, any attempt to create an article called Pharmacy law as suggested by Bearian would be almost impossible IMO since the laws vary so much from country to country. --MelanieN (talk) 19:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "First, reproducing entire sections of law code is inappropriate for an encyclopedia; there are other places on the Intenet where people should go for such information." (1) One such place is Wikisource. Is there anything in the article that should be moved there? (2) Reproducing the whole of a statute is usually inappropriate. Reproducing whole sections of a statute it is often absolutely necessary to explain amendments to it and case law on its meaning. James500 (talk) 15:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Second, the article is mis-titled". That is not an argument for deletion because the page name can be changed using Special:MovePage. James500 (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Third, any attempt to create an article called Pharmacy law as suggested by Bearian would be almost impossible IMO since the laws vary so much from country to country." Again, that is a non-argument because you could get round that by creating a separate article for each country. Such as an article called Pharmacy law in Bangladesh. James500 (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) In fact, by this logic, the article Law should presumably be deleted as laws in general vary from country to country even more than in this particular area. James500 (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT. --Ragib (talk) 19:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 01:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete substantially per MelanieN. Lord Roem (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting discussion; I may go along with deletion based on how things are going. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2012 (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.