Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota pyrotechnic laws


 * 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. No prejudice exists towards userfication, just drop me a note on my talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 10:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Minnesota pyrotechnic laws

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The page is simply a reference to specific laws of a specific area. There is little possibility of added information. The information on the page likely found more easily and clearly on a Minnesota police website. Wikipedia is not a repository of laws etc (WP:NOTREPOSITORY). Howan (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article could easily be expanded. The subject matter is definitely notable, and historical context could easily be added. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 23:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into a larger article per the usual outcomes. Legal articles of "X law in State" generally keep if they are overall areas, such as New York energy law, Palestinian law, or List of Philippine laws.  This one is much too specific.   A merge to Fireworks is a cheap and easy option.  Another possibility is to split into a new article at Laws_governing_consumer_fireworks.Bearian (talk)
 * I think that this article could be expanded into something more than a list, as it is a big deal in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in that these laws result in massive amounts of arial fireworks being brought into Minnesota from Wisconsin, as well as large fireworks dealerships springing up right over the border in Wisconsin. In short, the notability of the subject goes beyond the laws themselves, and warrants inclusion. RadManCF &#x2622; open frequency 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * If anyone can work on this, in mainspace or userspace, please do so. Rescue? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not LexisNexis. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 13 April 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.