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. --Ymblanter (talk) 04:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCLR 2016 Wiki Version (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "article" is simply the full text of the proposed bill. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Either it is a copyvio or it fails WP:NOTREPOSITORY (in which case it might be more suitable for wikisource if it's been legitimately published and licensed freely, which isn't a given despite the unsourced licensing section at the end) --Ahecht (TALK[reply]
PAGE) 04:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

• Delete- It's basically the full text of a bill that hasn't even been passed yet (it happens to be about the legalization of pot, apparently). Wikipedia isn't a giant repository of political documents.

Edit: It's been deleted before as a copyvio, something to take into consideration.

Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedy delete as a copyvio. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable and promotional. STATic message me! 03:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems the license under which this is (re) released after being deleted for copyvio is compatible with CC by SA and the GFDL. However as I explained to the author in my talk page, this is out of scope for the project. If anything it belongs in WikiSource. Beyond that, it's a "dump" of a raw document, and serves as advocacy for the proposed legislation, which is also inappropriate. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:48, 27 April 2014 (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.