Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia blunt ban


 * 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 keep, given the significant rewrite. It may be possible that some of those arguing to delete did not see the rewrite, but the concerns have been addressed and the initial nomination was withdrawn (though this is not a speedy keep). --Core desat  03:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Philadelphia blunt ban

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to fail WP:NOT and WP:NOT SUBWAYguy 02:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Comment I'm happy to withdraw the nomination after the rewrite. SUBWAYguy 03:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Provides good information on what is clearly an ill thought out ban. Chris789 13:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is incredibly obvious POV. We might be able to have an article on the ban, but it's not this. --N Shar 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Week Delete Strong Keep Ghits pretty high, but a lot blog stuff, Has some WP:NPOV issue, but mostly just needs to pass WP:V, List a few major reliable, third-party sources (think local and national news to pass WP:N) and I would change my vote. Jeepday 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing vote. The article as been significantly improved, is well referenced, and seems to meet all Wikipedia Polices. (P.S. great job on the rewrite)  Jeepday 03:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as a severe NPOV violation. YechielMan 05:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The article lists condoms as a potential item of paraphanalia. How does one use a condom to ingest a controlled substance?  Now there's an article topic! Deranged bulbasaur 09:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) - A condom could however be used to "pack, repack, store, contain, conceal" - hence making it illegal chris789
 * Keep: per a rewrite. I can even look into it if you want.A mcmurray 14:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Go ahead and do a rewrite, the article does not look like it will survive without it (and maybe not then). Be sure to use solid references.  Jeepday 15:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: Probably only one of several laws that go way outside a reasonable scope. Why not create an article that tries to caputre them all under the name : Government overreaction to control drug use. Or something like that; there this ban would be a nice illustration, but on its own, seems not notable enough...... Arnoutf 14:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and pass the fruit. Fundamental Dan 16:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite. this is notable. disclaimer i worked on this article - Stoph 20:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I especially like the pic of the apple. Nardman1 21:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation of a different article on the same topic - all of the tags at the top are accurate and they add up to an inappropriate article.- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as improperly referenced original research The only reference provided is a link to the actual bill itself. No independent references or articles about the bill are referenced, and the article goes on to list items it claims are covered by the bill without actually providing independent references to that pseudo-legal opinion. It might be possible to rewrite the article and find proper sources for it, but as is the current version should simply be removed as unreferenced, subjective original research.  Dugwiki 22:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep pending significant article rewrite The event is important in terms of its precedent setting misdirection and ill-defined scope.--Sludge 23:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is just OR/soap boxing. The subject seems notable enough, though wouldn't it make more sense to call the article Philadelphia Bill No. 060345? Koweja 23:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and rewrite. The subject is certainly notable.  However, the article as it stands is sheer POV soap box, and it would be best to restart the article.-- danntm T C 02:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Try now. Uncle G 03:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - much better. Should probably be renamed though? - Dmz5  *Edits**Talk* 03:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep after rewrite. Good job Uncle G, though I still think it should be renamed to the actual title of the bill . Koweja 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually a part of the Philadelphia Code, now that the bill has passed into law. I've yet to find a source that gives an exact citation, though.  They all call it the "blunt ban" (or minor variations thereof).  Thus by our Naming conventions (common names) that is what the article's name should be. Uncle G 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Koweja 18:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 07:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article as it has been rewritten. Wonderful work everyone.  (jarbarf) 23:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The ordinance itself is notable, and has recieved sufficient attention from third party sources. Before the rewrite, the article would've best been scrapped, but the new version is mostly acceptable. I've changed my mind. Deranged bulbasaur 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors may also like to contribute to the discussion of . Uncle G 18:46, 17 February 2007 (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.