Deletion of Spliff politics

Comment: per , or possibly just from lack of reliable mainstream sources, but I am wondering if it possible to get a reliable, mainstream source that covers marijuana culture?  Isn't this kind of a fringe topic to begin with?  More than anything, I am struck by what an exceptionally well-done article this is in other ways.  Good graphics, good writing, good maintenance (apparently mostly by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: from nominator. My argument is not that this article is not written in proper English, nor that the pictures are inappropriate, nor that the article has been subject to vandalism, because I appreciate these are not reasons for deleting an article. I am also not saying that having one main editor (Thisnamestaken) is a bad thing because this is how many/all articles here start out and the article is well written. I am saying that the entire article, from start to finish reads like original research, interspersed with a "How to" guide (e.g. "If someone rolls or passes you a duff joint (eg, too tight, too loose, to wet, keeps going out) it is best to quietly mention the deplorability of the joint to the roller...") I appreciate that "Spliff politics" may exist, that it may vary by city/region/country, with spliffs being passed anti-clockwise in the Southern and clockwise in the Northern hemispheres, respectively, much like the Coriolis effect. However, I listed this article for deletion because I could not see anything worth saving perhaps other than the word "Spliff politics". I know that the article has seen a lot of work, but  is not good enough. Lastly, thanks to Uncle G for scrounging out the Social Problems article, which I too have downloaded and will have a look at after the weekend
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:EFFORT)

Comment: but with the understanding that the article needs to be sourced. |Original research is a concern here and I raised it as a , shortly after it was written. I have smoked this product (but obviously never inhaled) and with changing attitudes and legislation (Netherlands and UK), it may well be necessary to discuss '''"ganjaquette"'''. A single writer itsn't a bad thing ''per say'' and it doesn't appear to have any political motives. Neither does it appear to have been vandalised. The first Spliff politics disappeared in a puff with a speedy delete months ago, but was no where near as detailed as this. It is well written, I googled some of the most eloquent sentences and none of it seems plagerised. Sourcing is a requirement on Wikipedia, but to enter an Afd, move to delete and walk away strikes me as sloppy editing, if not Afd''trolling''.  If we have time to read Afd, we surely have time to constructively edit the articles we comment on.  I will try and source some of its contents over the weekend and hope other editors will to
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:PROD)