Drugs controlled by the UK Misuse of Drugs Act : That is not what an encyclopedia is for.  The rest of it (which is just the introduction) can be merged to Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 .  That article already has a link to the legislation, if the readers want to see the whole list; that article should just summarise the list, not reproduce it in its entirety.  Richard75 ( talk ) 21:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 23:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971#List_of_controlled_drugs : as three collapsible boxes, by class.  I agree that this list doesn't qualify for a standalone article.  But when included in a proper article, this list is useful and has encyclopedic value.  And being collapsed by default, it wouldn't clutter the article.  Owen× ☎ 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment: My concern isn't just about clutter, it's about content.  If the list is useful, then link to it – that doesn't mean it all belongs in the article.  The article about War and Peace doesn't quote the whole book, it just tells you about it.  Richard75 ( talk ) 00:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And the article about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists all 34 sections, but I'm not sure what either War and Peace or the Charter has to do with our case.  We have many articles that include a comprehensive list, when the list is encyclopedic but not suitable for a separate listicle.  This particular list is useful and encyclopedic, but it isn't notable as a standalone list.  That makes it a perfect candidate for inclusion in an existing article about its topic, in this case, the 1971 Act.  Owen× ☎ 01:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Canadian Charter article lists and summarises all 34 sections, but it doesn't quote them in full.  Richard75 ( talk ) 01:53, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This list has been deeply useful to me in the past.  The government legislation pages are now easier to browse but I think it would be a shame to see it moved off wikipedia.  If the problem is that it only lists substances specifically named in the legislation, a better solution would be to start making it a "list of x" article and including things like 6-APB and others that are classified but not specifically named in legislation.  Testem ( talk ) 10:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  Satisfies LISTN and GNG easily and by a wide margin.  This topic (both the topic of controlled drugs, and even the Schedules which list those drugs) has received significant coverage in books and periodicals.  To deal with the nominator's arguments, which are irrelevant to LISTN and therefore irrelevant: The contents of this article differ significantly from the text of the legislation, which definitely does not include much of the content of the tables.  Further, the list is not copied from the legislation, because the amended text of the legislation does not actually exist as a published work that is a statute.  It is true that various secondary and tertiary sources contain something that purports to be the amended text of the legislation, but these sources are actually compilations and annotations, and they are not the verbatim text of the numerous statutes and statutory instruments they purport to compile into one.  Wikipedia should contain a list of controlled drugs, because this is important and useful encyclopedic information that our readers need and want, and (more importantly) because it is included in the treatises and other books on this subject.  Our readers cannot just go and look at the amended legislation, because it does not exist as a published work that is a statute.  And they cannot necessarily go and look at secondary and tertiary sources that purport to revise the legislation, because those sources are generally controlled by the government or commercial publishers: and such sources can be paywalled, passworded or completely withdrawn.  Telling our readers to just go and look at those sources would also have issues with NOTPROMO, as we generally do not exclude information merely because it could be obtained from a non-WMF source, and we will not promote such sources by giving them a free gift of 10,000 page views per month of our article traffic.  And those compilation sources are usually out of date.  The length of the list is not excessive, having regard to the notability and importance of the subject.  James500 ( talk ) 02:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Here is a complete list on the legislation website, which is free.  Richard75 ( talk ) 11:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They could put a paywall on that website at any time.  They could even take it down.  Public opinion may not necessarily stop them forever.  Public opinion does not always stop austerity, or rent seeking, or price gouging, or the use of regressive indirect taxes, or privatisation, by governments.  It only takes the words "budget deficit" or "this costs the taxpayer too much" (the word "taxpayer" being a dog whistle that really means certain rich people who pay direct taxes) to shut down a service like that.  They originally wanted to put a paywall on that site.  A paywall was actually placed on the British Newspaper Archive.  These kind of sites are not necessarily immune.  If we give them the opportunity to restrict free access, they may actually take it.  We have to think about the future, and the future is a very long time, during which government policies can change drastically.  James500 ( talk ) 14:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Misuse_of_Drugs_Act_1971 This list is definitely a decent part of the encyclopedia.  However I feel as though the contents of the article would be better as part of the main article on this act.  People would be able to find these details more useful if they are able to find them among the rest of the information on the legislation.  These are important aspects of the legislation and thus deserve some coverage, even if that doesn't mean that it gets its own complete article.  Samoht27 ( talk ) 15:11, 13 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge