Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Higgby 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Higgby Act[edit]

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

Delete I can't Can't find any reliable sources to show it's notability (indeed I'm kinda struggling to find proof of its existence. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can not find any reliable sources on Google. I can only find two self-published Books on Google. Nothing exists on Google scholar nor at Google news. There is nothing at the public search at Findlaw.com, nor at the Professional search engine at Findlaw.com. I even tried that search an alternate search under Higby. Then I looked at the Library of Congress. A search at the same LOC yielded nothing relevant. The bottom line is that I can't verify that it was a law. If it did exist, it was a short-lived, non-notable statute. I tried to look before I seconded the prod, and just did additional searches. If anybody can find any sources, I will change my mind. However, I must depart with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), who deprodded it, on this discussion. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I want to assume good faith, the fact that the edit summary for the removal of the PROD was "Keep and expand, easily sourced" makes me think that they just read the article, which, were it true, would be something easy to find documentation of. I'm guessing they didn't look into the talk page conversation. of course, I'm going to hope I'm wrong about that, and assume good faith that they'll bring a good reason along.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just searched one more place - The Biographical Directory of Congress - for a Higgby, and found nothing. For good measure, I also looked under Higby and found nothing relevant (William Higby having died in 1887). Since almost all Federal Acts were named for their sponsor, it is extremely unlikely that the Act ever existed. I assume that Mr. Norton, whom I respect, looked at Google and saw there were some random sources. Bearian (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems like this is an exceptionally well done hoax. It's made it quite a while.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to have been a very successful hoax. Like Bearian, I looked for someone by the name of Higgby, Higby, or Higbie in Congress. Since bills are occasionally named for deceased Congressman, I thought there might be a chance that one was named for William Higby, but there's no indication that in his later life he was active in anything related to railroad rates -- much less 14 years later. I did find a Higbie-Armstrong Act in the state of New York during the relevant period, but that's not close enough. --Orlady (talk) 02:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur that it is either a hoax or a typo of such magnitude that it defies internet searches. Haus^Talk 03:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Pause while the N.Y. law gets sorted. Haus^Talk 03:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My browser history is chock full of "Highby, Higbee, Hibby, and god knows how many others. I almost feel like the creator deserves an award.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, rename~~. There may be a small grain of truth to this article. Robert W. Higbie was the representative for the Wholesale Lumber Dealers' Association in West Virginia. He addressed the committee on Interstate Commerce in 1901. His statement was published in the book ""Railway freight rates and pooling." Hearings before the Committee on Interstate Commerce, United States Senate, having under consideration the bills (S. 3521) "To enlarge the jurisdiction and powers of the Interstate commerce commission," introduced in the Senate February 4, 1902" in 1902 on page 86. He did indeed discuss rebates, but I have no idea if this actually became law. It may need more digging before it is considered for deletion. Definitely rename.Froggerlaura (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, you may be on to something. That being said, we really still can't keep the article in its current state if it is not true; while there may have been a proposal by this Mr. Higbie, it doesn't seem like it passed as any sort of act in his name. Interestingly there also appears to be a "Armstrong-Higbie Act" concerning railroads in 1901, although this seems to involve the NY State legislature and not the US Congress. But awesome research.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Agree that it appears to be a state law. Also, it sometime appears as both "Armstrong-Higbie Act" and "Higbie-Armstrong Act". If anyone's considering closing, it looks like it would be worth pausing while this is sorted out. Haus^Talk 03:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, rename~~ - Well, I'll be. Both Froggerlaura and Hous are correct. "Higgby" is a typo of enough magnitude that the correct name "Higbie Act," or actually "Armstrong-Higbie Act" wouldn't show up on any searches with the former name. There does seem to be a lot of coverage from multiple sources on this transportation related law that appears to have had some significance at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. [1] --Oakshade (talk) 03:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Oh I don't know! No prejudice for creating an Armstrong-Higbie Act article. My head is spinning trying to figure this out. This "Higgby Act", while transportation related, is not the "Armstrong-Higbie Act" per below. However, per below also, this might be an actual act as Yaksar is reporting. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm all for creating something on this new act if it's notable. That being said, it is definitely different from the act in this article. I don't really see the reasoning behind keeping in article so that it's name can be changed and its content can all be removed and restarted. It exists, but doesn't seem to have any connection to the current article. But whatever works, I guess.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wait a sec! This has nothing to do with the Armstrong-Higbie act, but rather Frogger Laura's link, so I apologize for moving us off topic. The document the FroggerLaura linked to seems to refer to Mr. Higgbie commenting in congress on the Elkins act. I don't know if the original creator possibly misinterpreted the document (or, more likely, I'm reading it wrong), but it does not seem that any particular law was passed or proposed after him.--Yaksar (let's chat) 04:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you can Delete. Here is what I think is the record for the alleged bill (argued in 1900). The bill is not named and Higbie only gives a a small statement, even though trade publications said he did a lot of arguing for the bill. Unless is was retroactively named "Higbie" after it passed because the guy was so annoyingly persistent, I don't think it exists. Froggerlaura (talk) 04:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, finally. It was called the Cullom Interstate Commerce Bill. At least reported by the Baltimore American on August 17, 1900.

Hmm, very interesting. It's awfully confusing, since Senator Shelby Cullom did play a major role in the Interstate Commerce act, but his Cullom Bill on interstate commerce seems to have been passed around the same time in the 1880s. Indeed, there seems to be a reference to the name of the bill you mentioned, in full, in lots of documents from 1886, like this one. I think?--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, here is more (with photo!) about Robert Winfield Higbie to prove he did exist [2]. Here Higbie talks about the "rate bill" [3], he mentions two amendments to the previous 1886 act, maybe one was named after him? But I think the 1903 Elkins Act quoted on wiki is actually called Elkins Law and the act was passed in 1906, hence the confusion. Froggerlaura (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, all this makes me wish we could ask the creator of this article what he was thinking of. Ah well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can't even figure out what this article is about, much less determine whether that subject is notable. What we have determined is that there was no "Higgby Act"; it may be about New York legislation (in which case the article is completely erroneous); or it may actually be about (using an incorrect name) the Elkins Act of 1903, which already has an article. The creation of this article represents the sole contribution of its original editor Daetwon (talk · contribs), and in over six years has never grown beyond the unreferenced two-sentence stub that it started out as. Delete. TJRC (talk) 20:04, 9 March 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.