Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spliff politics
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
— User:Mike33, 01:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OR||WP:PROD (Wikipedia:No original research)