Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill of Federalism

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 redirect to Randy Barnett. NW (Talk) 15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill of Federalism

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

Vanity article, non-notable subject. Appears to be a summary of an article/proposal by a college professor on how he would like to see the US Constitution amended. None of the citations except one mention the "Bill of Federalism" itself. The official website for the bill^{[dead link]} has been a dead link since July 2010. Rillian (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. This is a tough one, but I'm leaning towards merge and redirect to Randy Barnett. Barnett himself is obviously notable (full professor, publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals, well-known in libertarian political circles, etc.), but the more difficult question is whether the proposal itself has standalone notability. He seems to have written about it in some high-profile media outlets - including this article in Forbes and this one in the Wall Street Journal - but I can't find much in the way of independent third-party coverage, other than the John Birch Society (hardly a reputable source) critiquing the proposal. The article cites various reported cases and law journal articles in explaining the constitutional background and purpose of Barnett's proposal, but none of these citations are about the proposal itself, and they therefore have no bearing on whether it is notable. On a related point, much of the current article is original research, and reads like the author's own reflection on American constitutional jurisprudence and the problems therewith.

In short, I'd say the project is notable enough to be mentioned in the article on Barnett, but it isn't (as far as I can tell) notable enough to merit a standalone article, or this amount of detail. However, I'll change to a keep if someone unearths some substantial coverage of the proposals, either in the media or in the peer-reviewed academic literature, which wasn't written by Barnett himself. Walton^One 16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I agree with Walton about the redirect to Randy Barnett, but not the merge. Currently, although well done, this reads too much like a piece promoting the "Bill of Federalism". Providing a citation to a statement by Randy Barnett containing the text of the "Bill of Federalism" in the Randy Barnett article should suffice. --Bejnar (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect makes sense to me. Barnett is notable and his ideas have gotten a lot of press, but until the amendments actually get introduced in Congress or something, they're just a professor's ideas. Coemgenus 17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Merge and redirect seems to be the best solution to what is essentially a vanity article. ThatOtherMike (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The amendments have been introduced as bills in state legislatures. This is not just one law professor's proposal, but a set of proposals that have been widely discussed, critiqued, and expanded in the print media and blogosphere and among political activists and politicians. A Google search for "Bill of Federalism" in quotes yields 3,230 hits, including Forbes magazine, the Volokh Conspiracy, Tea Party sites, etc. The Repeal Amendment, which is the most widely discussed component of the proposals, has garnered over 79,000 hits on Google and has been publicly supported by prominent politicians, including the governor of Virginia,[1] and has passed at least one state house committee.[2]--Jsorens (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. This doesn't need an article by itself, lack of notability. This is no more notable than me suggesting to my state congressman that there should be a state amendment, then making an article about it on Wikipedia. If, in fact, it has been "widely discussed" (as pointed out by an above poster), then such links should be provided in the article. As it stands, the only reference on the page which mentions it is an article written by Barnett himself. Squad51 (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a rationale for improving the article rather than redirecting it, as I suppose the redirect will radically reduce the amount of content on the topic.--Jsorens (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "Bill of Federalism" gets about 3200 hits, not 79,000 (when I just checked it a moment ago - and some of these are about something else, a "federalism bill" from 2002 comes up). Secondly, I still wouldn't be that convinced of its notability. Because its gotten out of one state house committee and has support from a governor, doesn't make it notable enough to be an article separate from the person who started it. Keep in mind, it would take 3/4 of ALL 50 states for it to be part of the Constitution. At this point, it seems highly unlikely. Squad51 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it for us to judge whether the amendment is likely to be enacted? If it is part of public debate, shouldn't it be included here on that ground alone?--Jsorens (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of things are debated by the public. That doesn't make them notable or worthy of a Wikipedia article. However, none of the responders to this discussion are saying the topic should disappear, rather it should be included in Barnett's article. Rillian (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As per Jsorens' remarks above, it's pretty clear that the Repeal Amendment is notable in itself. (That page currently redirects to List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution.) It seems to be a pretty widespread Tea Party idea which has been adopted by some state and federal politicians. But I'm not sure that that makes the rest of Barnett's "Bill of Federalism" notable, since the rest of it doesn't seem to have garnered similar attention (most of the press coverage of the Repeal Amendment doesn't mention it). So... perhaps create a substantive article to replace the redirect at Repeal Amendment, and add some of the relevant sourced material there? Walton^One 21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Randy Barnett. Seems notable enough for inclusion there, but not yet notable enough for a spinout article. Edward321 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Randy Barnett for reason stated by Edward321. Copritch (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2011 (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.