Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 and redirect to Patriot Act, Title III. Sandstein 10:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A (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)

Wow, just wow. This article is a combination of original research, essay, and mostly is only based on primary sources. It is essentially devoid of analysis by secondary sources, and should be deleteed and redirected to Patriot Act, Title III. This is in pretty clear violation of WP:IINFO-- anybody who wants this level of detail is better off just reading the law themselves. See WP:TNT. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This a a comprehensive analysis/reading of Title III, Subtitle A - I think the primary government sources are sufficient to source what is a section of a public law. It is notable passing both WP:V and WP:N. Whichever portions are deemed "essay", original research or POV push, can be pared or removed. The sheer length of Patriot Act necessitates a need for a separate article here. Individual sections are relevant - the lone Senator (Russ Feingold) to vote against the Patriot Act said his vote was based on Section 215. So it is established that sections of the law are notable. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst respectfully, Section 215 is not part of Title III, Subtitle A, but part of Title II, so it's not relevant to this Subtitle's notability. That is already covered at Section summary of the Patriot Act, Title II. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re ping Lightburst Eddie891 Talk Work 22:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was making a point that parts of the Patriot act can be important or notable on their own...like 215. I think it is appropriate to have an article for Patriot Act, Title III, Subtitle A (section). Lightburst (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not an annocated law book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contributors AleatoryPonderings, Johnpacklambert, paraphrase nominator Eddie891 and make the assertion that "Wikipedia is not an annocated law book". That is correct. I suggest you should also consider that assertion irrelevant if your independent web search of the topic determined that this section of the Patriot Act had enough coverage of it in particular this it measured up to GNG.

    You did conduct your own web search, before you weighed in here, right?

    This is the section of the Patriot Act intended to counter terrorists use of money-laundering to covertly finance terrorist projects. It has been highly controversial, and so measures up to GNG. Can't it be adequately covered in USA Patriot Act. No. The USA Patriot Act article is already very long, and already tries to cover many related topics. It is ripe for forking.

    Please re-read the deletion policy and related guidelines. If the anti-money-laundering provisions of the Patriot Act is a topic that measures up to GNG, but the current version of the article is written like "an annotated law book", that is not an argument for deletion. That is an argument for the article to be rewritten. AFD is not supposed to be used as a whip to force article improvement. Eddie891, concerns like yours should have been raised on the article's talk page, not AFD.

    Maybe the article should be renamed to something like The Patriot Act's anti-money-laundering measures. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, that would be a completely different topic. The article has no secondary source analysis, it's literally just a lightly annotated law book. In my web search, I found no coverage to suggest this was a notable subject. I do think that it can be adequately covered in the articles Patriot Act, Title III' which is already a content fork. In my opinion, a separate article is not merited, and I would have redirected this myself, because--even if it is notable--I feel the tnt point has been reached . If you want to write an article on the 'Patriot Act's anti-money-laundering measures', please feel free to, but that would involve completely rewriting this article, and refocusing it. I'd like to see your sourcing that the topic specifically meets WP:GNG, as well as a clear explanation why it can't be/isn't adequately covered in the article I mentioned. And I do feel that AFD was the best place to raise these concerns, as outlined above. AFAIK, one doesn't propose deletion and redirection on an article talk page. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 22:16, 2 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Patriot_Act,_Title_III,_Subtitle_A&oldid=977179891"