Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposition H

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition H[edit]

I've nominated this article for deletion, as the text is written in future-tense, though the dates have already passed. Aside from being orphaned, nothing seems to point to this page, which would indicate that is has no inherent value. Kevin 06:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete undistinguished proposition. Gazpacho 06:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what?--ZayZayEM 15:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep controversial and notable enough. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I linked to a newspaper article stating that the proposition was approved. I also linked to Prop H from Gun control in the United States (by state), which already had a brief description of the ordinance. The article on Proposition H can be expanded to include earlier proposals and drafts, public debate, analysis of voting patterns and other issues that are not germane to Gun control in the United States (by state). An interesting case in passage of a US gun-control law. Fg2 02:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sort of slight crystal ball gazing, but "consideration" is such a flexible way to put things to keep them in.-Kmaguir1 08:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After waiting a couple of days, I still feel that the content falls in a few places under the WP:NOT umbrella. Assuming the information it contains is somehow valuable, the article should be overhauled. I think the absence of links to it prove that it isn't significant to other articles, and the lack of maintenance demonstrates that it isn't important enough to be maintained. Maybe it could be merged with a list of California-centric proposals, or a list of gun control proposals? Kevin 19:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no basis established for deletion. Google suggests ample sources exist for future development. Pieces of legislation very frequently develop enough sources to warrant an article, this doesn't appear to be an exception. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: independent press coverage and proposition has passed into law. Gun control always seem to be a big issue in the USA. Stephen B Streater 18:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this legislation is important no basis established for deletion Yuckfoo 09:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Stephen B Streater. bbx 19:00, 11 September 2006 (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.