Talk:Cocaine Anonymous

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archived deletion discussion[edit]

Article listed on WP:VFD Sep 13 to Sep 20 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

This doesnt seem to fall under any good category. If this is real, which I have to assume it is, then this person needs help and the page should be deleted as it is really personal information. If it is not real, then this should be deleted anyway.--Jpittman 03:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • You gotta feel sorry for this guy, and yes, Cocaine Anonymous is a real 12-step organization. However, you are correct, Jpittman, that this article is not encyclopedic, and thus cannot remain here. Delete. Denni 04:10, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Kairos 04:51, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) Keep. I like the rewritten version. Kairos 02:05, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the page has been rewritten. (Thanks for the VfD rescue, Quadell.) Delete. The original content was more appropriate for Wikipedia:Reference desk, if anywhere here on Wikipedia. I've left a note to that effect on the anonymous author's talk page. • Benc • 06:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete: First hand account of drug abuse and therefore original research/essay. Geogre 12:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Keep rewrite, always happy to change a vote to keep. Geogre 00:19, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a real organization that is worth an article. The entire article needs to be rewritten, but the topic deserves an article. A good one. Quadell (talk) 20:33, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
    • Okay, I completely re-wrote it now. I think we'll all agree the new version doesn't need to be deleted. Quadell (talk) 22:25, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
      • Nice job Quadell: that's exactly what it needed. Antandrus 23:55, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Looks like I'll be in the minority here, but I also vote Keep. None of the existing article can stay though: it needs at least a short writeup of the real organization. Antandrus 20:39, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Revised article is good. Gwalla | Talk 02:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - New version is indeed good. -- Crevaner 16:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's completely encyclopaedic now. - Cymydog Naakka 10:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very nice now. The original "article" is rather moving, I think. ClockworkTroll 07:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

End archived discussion - Graham ☺ | Talk 11:29, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


In 2004 the previous version passed as a good article? ... Anyway, I rewrote the article with references to reliable sources to prevent a cocky admin from doing something like this to it. — Craigtalbert 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cocaine Anonymous. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)