Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common items used as paraphernalia

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common items used as paraphernalia

Author's intention is to list items that can be used to facilitate drug use, in order for a ban on such items, apparently in place in Philadelphia, to be respected. Author: "It is critical to establish a list of items that are commonly turned in paraphernalia so that retail stores can be in compliance with the act". However, the page currently seems indiscriminate, listing apples, lemons, potatoes, squash, the Holy Bible and the New Gideon Bible. Is this encyclopedic, or a WP:NOT violation? lightspeedchick 14:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for so many reasons, but mainly because it is POV and Wikipedia is not in place to provide supporting evidence to regional (or any other) laws. Nuttah68 14:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page contains no explanation for what constitutes "paraphernalia", so no criteria for inclusion can be determined. No sources, some of these items are clearly original research. JulesH 17:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've just handled this very non-neutral soapboxing at Philadelphia blunt ban (AfD discussion), where exactly such an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a soapbox was replaced with an encyclopaedia article, that deals with this legislation in an encyclopaedic manner, with sourced analyses of the expected impact of the ban and without taking any of the sides on the issue that there clearly are. This article is a fork. Uncle G 18:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless list as anything can be used as drug paraphernalia. Koweja 18:51, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. --Metropolitan90 01:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom _SUBWAYguy 06:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research (although, some of my own original research supports some of the items listed ;) --The Way 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced listcruft. Nardman1 08:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Far, far too open ended to provide any type of value. (jarbarf) 00:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and List of tangible things. --Descendall 06:51, 22 February 2007 (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.