Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) 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 keep. (non-admin closure) f  e  minist  04:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Aviation Innovation, Reform, and Reauthorization (AIRR) Act

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An unpassed U.S. bill. Not a law: a bill. Sources that basically say "Look, here's a bill" or "Look, here's a bill and here's what might happen if it passed. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Calton | Talk 11:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your work here. I know you are trying to improve the encyclopedia, as am I. However, I respectfully disagree.


 * Per the Wikipedia guideline for Notability: "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." Source: WP:N.


 * Per the Notability guidelines:
 * "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
 * * It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
 * * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy." Source: WP:N.


 * The article passes Wikipedia's test for new articles, which can be found at the same page I've sourced above or specifically the section on that page which can be found at WP:GNG.


 * Here are the itemized requirements found at WP:GNG which is listed at WP:N:
 * * The article has significant coverage. While it only needs one source of significant coverage, it has several. Please view the list of references on the article you've proposed deleting. Among the references are Forbes, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank, The Hill, and The New York Times.
 * * Reliable sources. I would argue pretty easily that the above-mentioned resources are reliable and meet "editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline".
 * * Secondary sources. The sources listed above are secondary, not primary.
 * * "Independent of the subject." The bill and bill's authors did not write the news articles used as references listed above; thus the references are independent of the subject.


 * The article is written in the past tense modal, (i.e. the bill "would have" done x, y z) because the congressional session in which the bill was introduced has concluded. The verb tense should not be confused as a "crystal ball". It makes no predictions of the future.


 * Additionally, it's worth noting that dozens of legislative articles exist for bills that were not signed into law. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_legislation_of_the_114th_United_States_Congress and see similar categories for other Congresses. There are probably hundreds of unpassed bills that are standing articles in Wikipedia.


 * --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per the excellent and complete reasoning given by . ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 16:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strange new meaning of "excellent" I was previously unaware of, since it's mostly irrelevant to the deletion reasoning. And cutting-and-pasting irrelevant policy/guideline text doesn't really impress me. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 08:08, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per reasons listed above for keeping. If there is plenty of WP:RS and coverage, it is notable.  Simple as that.  --David Tornheim (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Routine news reports" =/= "actual impact", so no, not as simple as that. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ...article is written in the past tense modal. Meaning that this proposal is a) past; i.e., dead; and b) did not actually have any impact. Meaning it's not only WP:CRYSTAL, it's a dead' WP:CRYSTAL. --Calton | Talk 03:49, 13 April 2017 (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.