Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SECURE Act of 2019

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) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SECURE Act of 2019[edit]

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

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

Non notable legislation; the only sources are financial planner blogs and unreliable sources, with no significant coverage evidenced. A thorough WP:BEFORE search yielded no results other than blogspam and promotional material for various financial advisers (only brief mentions in reliable sources — just enough to prove existence but not close to enough to prove notability under the WP:GNG. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Michepman (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article has extensive coverage in sources like CNBC, Newsweek, and Forbes. I'm currently building it out right now but I think the article subject is notable and will continue to receive news coverage long term due to the scale of its impact on retirees and savers in the United States. Omanlured (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely covered in a variety of media. Here's the Washington Post. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unclear what your "thorough WP:BEFORE search" consisted of. Here's WBUR, Yahoo Money, WREX, The Philidelphia Inquirer, CBS News, and Fox Buisness, for starters. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Mdaniels5757. Bookscale (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I shouldnt have to remind you all of this, but it's not enough to name check it -- we need significant coverage (SIGCOV). Michepman (talk) 04:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - we're well aware of that, and there is, that's why the consensus is to keep the article at the moment. Bookscale (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure where there is "no in depth coverage", as all the others have said. Consensus clearly appears to be keep, probably ready to be closed. The nominator also seems to have recently nominated lots of other pages for deletion that clearly pass the guidelines. --Seacactus 13 (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a false and absolutely baseless accusation. Of the four articles i have proposed for deletion over the past month, only one was kept. Of the other three, one was an identified hoax by a vandalism-only user who was reported to ANI by someone else, and the other two had broad or burgeoning consensus to delete. Michepman (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)|[reply]

I am not accusing you of anything, just stating my observations, which very well could be wrong. I was referring to two of your three most recent nominations: Janette Sherman and Irving Kanarek, which have also been unanimously voted to keep so far.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede I was way off base about Janette Sherman but Irving Kanarek is mixed; if you read the consensus more carefully you see that there were a few votes to keep and one vote for WP:BLAR (redirect the page to the Manson page) which is one of the suggestions that I made in my Nom. Hardly “unanimous keep”. You’re also ignoring the hoax article i prodded (Rasa Salim Tehrani) which is more recent than Kanarek as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kathleen M. Jimino another recent AFD which in fact was *unanimously* supportive of my position and reasoning. Michepman (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that hoax page and never ignored it, like I said, just expressing my first observations for the discussion, which I see aren't all correct.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . Pace User:Michepman, there is a lot of coverage. I searched "SECURE Act" in the Wall Street Journal [1] and New York Times [2].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely meets WP:GNG -- extensive media coverage exists for this act, including the following links, for example: 1,2,3,4,5,6 --1990'sguy (talk) 15:22, 6 January 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.