Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items for which possession is restricted


 * 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 SNOW delete  The arguments below appear to be policy-supported and unanimous. Jclemens (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of items for which possession is restricted

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

tagged this for afd a week ago with the summary "Unsourced, Unencyclopedic". I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE is a better reason for deletion. &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unreferenced and indiscriminate. Roscelese (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete this list is too indiscriminate to be any use and this information will vary hugely by country and region. Hut 8.5 09:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete A holdover from 2002 when nobody took Wikipedia seriously, and asking for sources was uncool. We've come a long way from those days.  To some extent, I think it's a valid topic, but it reminds me of those "silly state laws" books that are even sillier than what they make fun of, because they don't ever attempt to prove anything with a source (e.g., "in Kentucky it's illegal to use blue dot headlights on Thursdays").   Mandsford 14:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Excellent example of an open-ended list that does not inform. Carrite Sept. 22, 2010.
 * Delete as completely indiscriminate and unverifiable OR. The organizing concept is far too vague, particularly without any context of time or place, and double-particularly when we're talking about mere "restrictions" on "possession" of "items".  Private property itself is a restriction on possession, because you're restricted from possessing something not yours unless you purchase it or otherwise legally acquire it, so I guess we'd have to add "other people's property" to the list (regardless of if you're down with it.  I'm trying to even think of a way that this would all be synthesized meaningfully if limited to a specific legal jurisdiction and I can't. Maybe a list of items whose possession is prohibited, but even that would entail many qualifiers (exceptions for police, military, researchers) and have to be very context-specific ("list of items the general public was prohibited from owning in Chicago in 1937").  Not useful or workable.  postdlf (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Concur with Postdlf. -- BenTels (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as indiscriminate and unsourced in its present form. However, the idea behind the list is not nearly as ridiculous as the title, and perhaps a similar list can be created under the title List of contraband, but that would need some sourcing. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Far too vague a topic for an article. How the heck did this page last 8 years without an AFD?  68.45.109.14 (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably because this article is so old that it has survived. Back when it was created standards were much laxer, whereas if someone created this article now a newpage patroller would tag it for deletion very quickly. Hut 8.5 16:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.