Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act

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. Secret ^account 06:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act

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

Per the reference mentioned on Talk:Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act 10,000 bills are introduced into each session of Congress. Only 400 become law. How is this bill more notable than the 9,600 that meet a similar fate? Not a notable bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 03:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as with the other related AFDs, the standard to be applied is WP:GNG and in this case I don't think the subject passes. I couldn't find a single "news" items on the subject, just legislative registries (routine), a couple of blogs (non-RS) and WP mirrors. Stalwart111 04:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to distinguish this bill from all the others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per stalwart. There is nothing notable about yet another bill that died in committee. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-primary reliable sources, other than blogs and similar work, where the subject has received significant coverage and is the primary subject of the source. Therefore the subject is not notable as described in WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clearly fails WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just additional harassment from Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO... Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica. The information is factual and is obviously notable to the congresspeople who sponsored and co-sponsored it. Right now the argument is that newspaper editors are somehow more qualified than congresspeople when it comes to determining notability. Regarding the slippery slope argument... I think it's pretty absurd to worry about editors making the effort to create an entry for every 10,000 bills introduced. And if they did...so what? Why not have a record of all the laws that congresspeople have tried to pass? How is that unencyclopedic? Is the concern that 10,000 entries is going to take up a lot of space on the hard drive? If so, anybody with even the slightest knowledge of space constraints would appreciate how absurd such a concern is. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Xerographica (talk) 14:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Editor blocked for disruptive edits and attacking users. Mkdw ^talk 04:55, 3 March 2013 (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.