Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005

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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005

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

Fails WP:GNG; limited coverage; did not even get voted on by its committee. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 January 18. Snotbot t • c » 00:19, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been brought up by someone that tries to delete anything that may show Rick Santorum in any unflattering light. He has already tried to remove this from Rick Santorum’s Wiki page but has been reverted. He rarely goes to talk and then tries to delete pages like this. WP:SNOW is also in play. KEEP this page and recommend banning NYyankees51 from editing anything related to Santorum or the elections. --Sallynice (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article meets WP:GNG due to the number of articles about it. I haven't had a chance to add them yet, but here's a list of articles in Proquest:
- Lane, Mark (1 May 2005). "Weather Service in path of senator". News Journal. Daytona Beach, Fla. p. 01B.
- "FAIR FORECASTS". US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C. 6 May 2005.
- Lane, Mark (7 May 2005). "Bill Would Black Out Weather Service". The Ledger. Lakeland, Fla.
- "A REALLY DUMB IDEA ; Senator's plan to limit weather service is ill wind". Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio. 7 May 2005. p. 06A.
- Freedman, Andrew (July–August 2005). "Changing Weather?". Weatherwise. Vol. 58, no. 4. p. 12.
- Cantwell, Si (12 July 2005). "COMMON SENSE ; An ill wind blows bad bill our way, to cut off vital weather info". Star - News. Wilmington, N.C. p. 1B.
I'd guess there are more articles about it in other archives too. Will Beback talk 05:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all from the same timeframe and the bill had no political impact at the time or now. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they were all written at the same time is irrelevant. Notability is not temporary. See WP:NTEMP. James500 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The bill was written in 2005 and at best is still in committee, it is now Jan., 21st, 2012 and it is still not US law yet. This article lacks notability [WP:N ]. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see anything in the notability guidelines which says that bills are only notable if they've been enacted. We have a number of articles on pending bills, such as the Dream Act and SOPA. See Category:United States proposed federal legislation. Will Beback talk 01:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It is not notable because the legislation has languished in congress for seven years with little if any National or Global attention at any notable level. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing that you have said indicates that this article satisfies the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. James500 (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - A requirement for "National attention" would be completely inappropriate because countries vary greatly in size, and the United States is, in terms of population, a very, very, very big country. James500 (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 13:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This incident got quite a bit of media and governmental coverage, and is very notable because of it. It doesn't matter much that the bill never got out of committee, it's the coverage of this bill and the strong accusations that stemmed from it that makes it noteworthy. Eric (EWS23) 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor legislative proposal was made in 2005 and never passed as a law. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It reamins of political significance. In any case, we cover non-current events just as much as current--the principle is NOT NEWS , which I see as a positive principle for inclusion. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 1 February 2012 (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.