Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We the People 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep, merger not ruled out. Sandstein (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We the People Act[edit]

This article is about a bill that has yet to be passed, and that is unlikely to be passed. There are no secondary sources listed, no significant discussion of the bill in the mainstream media, and the analysis of the effects of the law are original research. Allow recreation of article without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Delete --- gag. I agree that it is extremely annoying that we have to police new pages created for proposed legislation by Ron Paul that will never pass, but this one has (infinitesimally weak) sourcing, and by that I mean WorldNetDaily (gag ack thbht) and "New American". We should focus on the articles that have no claim to notability, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Consent Act, first. --- tqbf 18:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article isn't that new, it has been around early since early 2006. Since this bill is unlikely to pass, it is likely to be quickly forgotten when Ron Paul leaves office. That would suggest that unless the bill passes, or generates some significant discussion beyond pundits expounding how great the world would be if it did, the policy of notability is not temporary would apply. Burzmali (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree the PCA should probably go. But per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS we shouldn't keep this article just because other crap exists. If the sourcing is really as weak as you say then yes it should go. Incidentally, it seems PCA coverage may have been slightly better then this. It was evidentally mentioned at Behavioral Health Management and Psychiatric News (See the deletion discussion)Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This bill is unlikely to pass, and if it does, then there will actually be sources to use. Tavix (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bill is important both in its backing by conservative souces http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=2673 and its usage by liberals to create opposition to Congressman Ron Paul. In that Ron Paul's campaign is notable, his key bills are notable 163.246.197.46 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an exercise: (1) a page on a political PAC's website isn't a reliable source, (2) notability isn't inherited, so Paul's bills aren't inherently notable, (3) you only cited one source, not multiple conservative sources, (4) you didn't source anything about liberals using this bill to "create opposition to Paul, and (5) you should create a WP account before commenting on an AfD (you'll gain privacy by doing so). --- tqbf 19:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLiberals using this bill to create opposition to Paul: http://insert.newsvine.com/_news/2007/12/24/1184755-the-we-the-evangelical-people-act . Admittedly, it is my own post, but I made it before this act's article was added to AfD, so I think its legit. (Sorry if this doesn't format right. Feel free to fix it.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Insert name here (talk • contribs) 19:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - perpetually re-introduced bill would not be notable if it were not authored by a controversial presidential candidate. As such it is valuable for what it says about his political positions. The bill analysis does not seem like OR as much as a restatement in non-legalese. Primary sources are perfectly fine for textual stuff like legislation. FarmBoi (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited, and we already have a page for the Political positions of Ron Paul. The analysis is original research specifically because it tries to "translate" legalese, an amateur's opinion of what a law would do is not a reliable source for an encyclopedia. Burzmali (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your link doesn't work. In fact, "inherit" does not occur anywhere in WP:N. You mean WP:ITSA which states:
    Notability of a parent entity or topic ... does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That's not to say that this is always the case (two of the notability guidelines, for books and music, do allow for inherited notability), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, sub-articles are created for formatting and display purposes. However, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums.
    
    MilesAgain (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Restatement in non-legalese" of legal documents is practically the definition of WP:OR. --- tqbf 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we are supposed to be able to summarize -- except for legal documents, because unlike all other summarization, that would be "practically the definition of WP:OR"? Please explain where you are seeing that. MilesAgain (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - If translation of legislation into "plain English" (or "non-legalese") wasn't synthesis, research, and interpretation (the definition of WP:OR), we wouldn't need lawyers. How does "plain English" interpretation of the law make it into the WP? When external reliable sources write about it. --- tqbf 01:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay, I'll agree with you on the 2nd paragraph of "Legal analysis" but the first is simply a straightforward restatement of the bill which is summarized from the plain language of its text, the same way that we would need to summarize a secondary source to avoid a copyright violation. The article is easily salvageable.
Keep - Notability is reasonably inherited in this case. Ron Paul came out of nowhere for most people, and it is abundantly reasonable to assume that people will be looking up his perennial attempts at legislation when deciding whether to vote for him or not. Given the article's edit history showing plenty of interest from IPs as well as diverse users, there is no question. MilesAgain (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While I agree with MilesAgain that notability is inherited in this case, I submit that, if this legislation's only notability is that of its author, it should be merged to Political positions of Ron Paul, as that would better link the bill to its author. If the legislation passes at some point, now or through the efforts of future legislators, then a mention of this first version would be appropriate at that time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a notable bill -- tens of thousands of are introduced every year, and this has few co-sponsors. Possibly merge with the political positions article. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The bill in question is notable because it was authored by a notable candidate in a current election and illustrates his controversial and extreme views. The fact the bill has no chance of passing, nor any chance of not being struck down if it did pass, doesn't change this. -SciurusCarolinensis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's being discussed more in the news, such as two days ago on CNN. TheSun (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That ought to be added to the article then! MilesAgain (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One wonders why the article on Brian Williams isn't 192909230230 million words long by now. --- tqbf 22:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One who can't see the difference between adding a secondary source to an article that has none and to one that already has them might wonder something like that. MilesAgain (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning towards delete but don't know enough about the American political system. But if it's true a large number of bills are introduced every year most of which fail and if it's also true this bill has not received that much attention then I say delete. If the only attention this bill has received has been in relation to Ron Paul then whatever necessary content should be marged with an appropriate article. There is no need, in fact it comes suspiciously close to a BLP violation to include mention of an otherwise non-noteable bill just because the candidate who supposed it is very notable and has achieved some notriety because of it Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The short response is that Ron Paul has never gotten a bill made into law in his 10 terms as a congressman. He is well aware that any bill he submits will die in committee. He does it to grab a few headlines and to pander to his libertarian supporters. This bill has probably been submitted a half dozen times in different forms, each time failing without even a vote. Once Paul leaves congress, his proposal will be quickly forgotten. Burzmali (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This legislation has been introduced many times by this presidential candidate, and can easily be verified with various bill-tracking websites. It's important to know what the candidates really stand for, and bills that they have introduced is the best way to see that. ≈Superbeatles™ 18:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's an argument for verifiability, but not notability. An article needs to be both. --- tqbf 18:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that legislation that a presidential candidate has introduced that would have far reaching effects is quite notable. It's a small peek into what a Paul Administration would be like, and at this point he still has a (infinitesimally small, mind you) chance of becoming President, and for this reason his legislative ambitions are notable. ≈Superbeatles™ 06:40, 6 January 2008 (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.