Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Path to Prosperity

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. No rationale for deletion provided. The issue of the article's name should be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Path to Prosperity[edit]

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

The article states that the budget is officially called "The path to prosperity". However, the cites don't show this as being the official name at all. May just be a nickname, but does not seem to be article worthy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should move it to a different title. Crazymonkey1123 (Jacob) ^(Shout!) 05:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is indeed the name for the House Republican proposal for the 2012 budget; see here. This article is going to be very closely related to the existing article at 2012 United States federal budget, and I can imagine arguments for both keeping this article separate versus merging it in to that one. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an official name. As a matter of objective fact. And given that this is the Republican proposal is it separate from the 2012 United States federal budget, which will be a different mix of things done in the future.

As an analogy, compare/contrast Healthy Americans Act verses Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator has not proposed deletion of the article. The article's talk page is the suitable place to discuss issues of naming. Ray^Talk 03:36, 12 April 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.