Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Employee Ownership Act of 1999

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. Keeper | 76 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Employee Ownership Act of 1999[edit]

Contested prod. This piece of legislation was never likely to become law, and I feel that it was not notable, because what coverage it had would be inherited from Ron Paul or Political positions of Ron Paul (which is where any coverage of this proposed act belongs, probably in a small footnote.)

Further, this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. We should have detailed and in-depth coverage of American politics insofar as it's notable, and indeed we do. But we do not need a separate article for a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law, and allowing it to exist creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area that it will be difficult to police. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep google web and scholar searches seem to show references from a wide variety of places, including in an article that appears to be about French politics. If this were to be merged, then it would need to be summarised in several places in addition to the two articles you mention, which always suggests to me that a standalone article is actually required. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete- I just don't see any notability here. Sure, it was attached to Ron Paul, but it doesn't inherit the notability from him. And since it was never passed, the bill doesn't gain any notability that way either. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I just don't see where this warrants anything other than maybe a brief mention in Paul's page. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless by policy all proposed legislation is inherently notable this certainly isn't.--Talain (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN - one of 200,000 bills proposed but never enacted in the last 10 years. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as NN Bill. It isn't an act because it wasn't passed. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Regarding Spaceman7Spiff's comment, I've asked this question in several Afds before but never been given an answer. In the UK, with which I'm more familiar, a proposed piece of legislation is called a bill, and only becomes an act if and when it is passed. Is the terminology not the same in the United States? We seem to get a constant stream of articles from the United States with "act" in their titles (and they nearly always seem to have been proposed by someone called "Ron Paul" - is he famous or something?) that don't appear to be acts by the definition of the word with which I am familiar. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been wondering that too (being British, I am also more familiar with the right pondian terminology), and I've taken the liberty of copying your question to the humanities reference desk - see WP:RD/H#Acts of parliament/congress - differences between UK and US terminology. Thryduulf (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, courtesy of your ancestors, my civics education was in Parliamentary democracy, so the Bill vs Act aspect is affected by that. However, if you see Act of Congress. You'll notice that it refers to an Act as something with the finality of the President's signature or inaction, while a Bill is what is discussed in Congress. I'm sure if you search up the US Congress databases, you'll find more technical analysis. That said, it's quite common to call something an Act before it passes, in the media or in conversation where instead of referring to it as HR Bill it is referred to by the proposed name, which includes "act" in it. But the way it would be referred to in the House or Senate records is by the Bill no, with the proposed name as a secondary identifier. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Act is non-notable and has done nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2009 (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.