Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to Ron Paul.  MBisanz  talk 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

American Sovereignty Restoration Act
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Second nomination; still non-notable legislation, now stale as well - sources tend to be Ideological extremist sites. Bill never passed, never had a snowball's chance of passing; it only survived the prior AfD because of the Ron Paul worshippers admirers (some of whom are nice people) taking it much more seriously than it deserved. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the RP worshippers? I think the sponsorship of this bill can be interpreted far differently than that, depending on one's own biases. The article could use some more care for balance, but I see no reason to delete it. DGG (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability was already established last time. National Review is not an "extremist site". Gigs (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Title needs to be changed if this sticks around; it's not an act. Hairhorn (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "SHORT TITLE(S) AS INTRODUCED: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007". That's its name.  To reuse an example from the last AfD, we still call the ERA an amendment, even though it never passed. Gigs (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where's the trouble with calling it a bill? That's what it is: a proposed act, not an actual one. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The name of the bill is the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act". We refer to bills by their name, if they had one, pass or fail. Go look here: Category:United_States_proposed_federal_legislation if you need over 100 examples. Gigs (talk) 03:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, sorry for the confusion. Here in Canada we call bills "bills" and acts "acts" so I guess that's the standard I'm used to. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, sorry Mike. It was reintroduced 2/24/09 per Ron Paul bills, is even still HR 1146, and is just as notable as last time round. Fully valid spinoff of Leave the UN. More if needed. JJB 05:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It doesn't matter to me who introduced it, which of the small number of co-sponsors there are or that I personally hold the UN in low esteem, we all know it is going to sit with no action and never pass. If the Congress can't find it notable enough to even push it through the committee's and to a vote, I sure don't see the notability in it. I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep A fairly notable bill. Whether it will eventually pass isn't the question, it's whether it's notable.  The article could be sourced better, I suppose, but it meets all of the criteria at WP:N. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: As before, non-notable bill that should be a redirect to Leave the UN. All the sources are trivial mention and/or aligned with Paul.  Last AFD, John spammed the page with every article from Google news no matter how trivial, which, consequently, has resulted in several of the links rotting away.  The only sources that even mention when the bill was submitted and what its current status is are from the World Net Daily, which is heavily biased when it comes to Ron Paul. If this bill was notable, there would be neutral sources or even sources that opposed the bill.  However, every single secondary source that has any discussion of the bill, supports it, because the only people talking about this bill are its supporters.  Burzmali (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What you claim is not correct. Gigs (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A blog, a google books search and Thomas's? Huh?  A blog is not a reliable source, a search is ... well ... a search and Thomas's is a primary source.  Almost every book in that search either simply reproduces the text of HR 1146 or mentions it in a footnote, the few that talk about it are opinion pieces.  Actually, that kind of exemplifies my point, this bill is little more than a footnote, even to those that oppose the UN.  Burzmali (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It is an artificial standard to exclude any source that praises the bill, like this analysis, which is even cited in academic papers. All sources have a bias. At least the biases are not hidden in this case. Gigs (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That analysis was done by the Liberty Committee. The Liberty Committee is Ron Paul's mouthpiece.  That means it isn't a WP:RS as it isn't independent and therefore can't be used to satisfy WP:N.  Burzmali (talk)
 * They say that Paul is their "honorary chair", but the actual piece was written by Herbert Titus, who by most accounts, is not the same person as Paul. It's obviously not a self-published source.  Gigs (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * They're still not a reliable source. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're splitting hairs: Paul is connected to them, so they're automatically NOT independent, no matter how you spin it. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Ron Paul. This is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia.  Can you say Systemic Bias?  If I tried to write an article on an equivalent piece of Indian or Chinese legislation, it'd be gone inside a New York minute.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, do not merge. It's utterly unremarkable: yet another failed bill that fell into the pond and made not a ripple. --Calton | Talk 18:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. If and when it clears the House and Senate and gets the much needed John Hancock, it can get an article. Until then, it's business of the House, that the House doesn't seem to be awfully keen on and that isn't notable enough for an encyclopaedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, do not merge. Ron Paul's Wikipedia entry is a featured article and is lengthy enough that there is no real room to include descriptions of his bills like that included in this article. Perhaps the article can be improved, as all articles can be, but I think it is worthy of inclusion- I never saw it before today but thought it was an informative article on an interesting bill, just the type of article that Wikipedia does well.--Gloriamarie (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good article, but not a FA. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This article is extremely well cited to multiple independent 3rd party sources. (Yale Law review, U.S. Newswire, etc.) This coverage is significant and the subject matter easily meets notability and verifiability requirements. (The fact that the nominator dismisses the supporters of a political candidate as "worshipers" also raises bias issues).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Claiming a footnote in the Yale Law review is satisfies WP:N is exactly why the more ardent supporters of Ron Paul have earned that reputation. As with the first AFD, find one article that actually discusses the bill in a non-aligned source and this AFD goes away.  Burzmali (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-aligned? Everything is "aligned" somehow. The New York Times is aligned. That doesn't make it an invalid source. The National Review which was sited above is a significant source (I don't know if they supported Ron Paul's presidential run but I highly doubt it). The Yale Law Journal is a significant source with regard to legal expertise, even in a footnote. There are numerous other sources. Your attempt to say that my vote should be disregarded because I support Ron Paul (which I do not) is a strawman argument.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the sources if you don't believe me. When I say aligned, I mean the sources actively support Ron Paul as the one last hope for humanity.  The rest of the sources are trivial mention.  Find one that doesn't stump for Ron Paul and gives the bill more than a paragraph.  Last AFD, John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) put every single hit from Google news, no matter how trivial, in the article.  Burzmali (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Bills that do not pass into legislation are about as noteworthy as people who seek but fail to win public office. History is littered with the dead carcasses each, and each are equally non-notable.  The only coverage this received was in partisan blog/tabloid hybrids like WorldNetDaily. Tarc (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul for the reasons so eloquently put by Tarc. Unenacted legislation is a significant source of cruft in Wikipedia. 00:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Political positions of Ron Paul. S Marshall brings up an excellent point about systemic bias, and I agree with Gloriamarie that this shouldn't go in the main Ron Paul article. However, we've got a very short section in this spin-out article that could use some expansion. Merging to the list of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul would be less than ideal because its mention of all his other bills is very brief and lengthening this entry would give it undue weight. Failure of a bill is not proof of non-notability, particularly in this case where Ron Paul knew it would fail but wanted to expose his political opponents as supporters of UN membership. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Explodicle. The subject is not notable on its own, but per WP:PRESERVE it's worthwhile to preserve the information and commentary. Ray  Talk 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support merge per Explodicle, this doesn't deserve its own page. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - as per Explodicle. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.