Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Speech Fairness 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. Consensus is overwhelming. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Free Speech Fairness Act[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)

Failed proposal received no significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator, and indeed the article offers no secondary sources at all. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

To closing admin: "the article offers no secondary sources" this is not a valid reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE it doesn't matter if sources are present in the article. What matters is are there sources available on Google or elsewhere? This !vote should be discounted. – Lionel^(talk) 21:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. I'm sure the closing admin will appreciate your assistance. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Rude. I'm sure Lionelt doesn't appreciate you responding to him in that manner. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure no one needs you policing every single minor discretion you find Winkelvi.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you his mother? He's a big boy, he can reply himself if he's upset. --Tarage (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out the big irony elephant in the room: editors telling me not to police behavior while policing my behavior. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my BEFORE check comes up with a couple of articles on it, but no reliable source. It would seem that non-enacted law would fall under GNG, and it does not meet those requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are very few available independent sources. This subject could become notable in the future, but for now, the bill is in committee and may very well die on the vine.- Mr X 🖋 20:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this nomination is way, way off the mark. Without much effort I found numerous independent reliable sources with significant coverage establishing notability under WP:GNG. In fact, it took longer to write this comment than to find the sources.

The Oklahoman
The Daily Signal
Deseret News
The Hill
Washington Post
CBN News

Now, before you complain that some of the sources are partisan, you should read WP:BIASED which explicitly permits partisan sources. Editors !voting here must follow WP:BIASED and not disqualify sources because of a preconceived notion that they are biased. – Lionel^(talk) 21:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So firstly, WP:BIASED requires several things, which need to be demonstrated for them to remain acceptable sources, such as confirming that suitable editorial control/fact-checking is in place, and a demonstration that the source is reliable in this specific context. To give a run through the sources,

1) Fails intellectually independent as once Lankford's content (both direct and indirect) is withdrawn there is almost nothing left, let alone Sig Cov.
2) Fails "reliable in this particular case" - not only is there a general bias but he has a direct interest in encouraging a particular view, and control is limited as it's an op ed piece, he isn't a staff writer.
4) Specifically renounces control of the content at the bottom
5) While obviously normally an acceptable news source, it again is an opinion piece, the article was not provided by a journalist and thus there was not editorial control & fact checking.
Source 3 (Deseret) I've left till last, since it's not clear what the situation is. BIASED imposes an obligation to be able to justify the sources, it also is a distinctly tenuous fragment of a guideline that needs to be on extremely firm grounds to override the standard policy covering RS. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, unless you address all of the articles found by clicking "news" and "scholar on searchbar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of those sources are opinion columns. One is simply not a reliable source by our standards. What remains is sparse coverage in a couple of reliable sources.- Mr X 🖋 15:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lionelt. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:46, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ MERGE: see below. This is a bill garnering significant attention. Wall Street Journal: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-fix-the-johnson-amendment-1486686394 "How to Fix the Johnson Amendment; The IRS has created a chilling effect on some religious speech. Time for a thaw." text excerpt: "President Trump promised last week that he would “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, a 1954 provision of the tax code that allows the Internal Revenue Service to police the speech of churches and other nonprofits. But Congress doesn’t have to repeal the amendment to make good on Mr. Trump’s pledge. The Free Speech Fairness Act, introduced in the House and Senate the day before the president made his remarks, fixes the law’s constitutional problems." And do note that Philip Hamburger has a new book out on the Johnson Amendment: Liberal Suppression: Section 501(c)(3) and the Taxation of Speech, University of Chicago Press (2018). The Johnson Amendment is a hot issue at the moment, and this Bill is about the leading proposal to reverse it. Article needs improvement, but sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as WP:NEWSORG says, "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact". The above WSJ article is written by the senior counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, and thus it hasn't ticked the appropriate boxes by any means. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editorial coverage isn’t enough to pass the smell test. 24.39.20.5 (talk) 02:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a one line stub that is not yet law (in over a year) authored by one member (is the the equivalent of a UK private members bill?), sorry to many things wrong with this. I suspect this is one of the 86% that die.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Slatersteven's argument is fairly persuasive. And the Hill's coverage was an opinion piece by a representative of an SPLC-designated hate group. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all we know this will not even become a law! Unless someone has a better crystal ball there is no reason to have an article that could potentially be “improved” by unreliable sources.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slatersteven and TheGracefulSlick above. If the bill does start making its way out of committee and into the national consciousness, we can always create an article. Not every byte of information that is created in the universe needs to be instantly mirrored on Wikipedia. --regentspark (comment) 19:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is one of many perennial efforts to repeal the Johnson Amendment; the article on Johnson Amendment mentions repeal efforts, which are best treated in context. Neutrality^talk 00:14, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources. If this bill attracts more sponsors, it would gain more press coverage and may eventually qualify for an article. WP:CRYSTAL/WP:TOOSOON. — Newslinger talk 13:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~'merge~~' this stub into Johnson Amendment#Repeal efforts. Too much sourcing comes up on the tool bar above, up to and including scholarly articles (not the sole topic of these articles, but still.) Nor is the fact that bill has not been enacted a legitimate argument for deletion. Johnson Amendment may be a better home for this widely discussed legislative initiative than a free-standing, one-sentence stub. Yet another topic in need of an editor.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Um, dude, it's already there. What's left to merge? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

good point. Although that section needs expansion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lacks SIGCOV for a stand-alone article. The repeal efforts are already covered in Johnson Amendment#Repeal efforts and this is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill proposed legislation with no significant coverage. Carrite (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Deb (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2018 (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.