Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balanced Budget Veto Amendment


 * 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. No objections to a later redirect somewhere as an editorial decision. Cirt (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Balanced Budget Veto Amendment

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think this topic is non-notable (Notability). I don't think it's received any substantial coverage in the media or academic writings. Also the entire content of the article is included in Balanced Budget Amendment so doesn't need to be reproduced in a separate article. Iota (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete An interesting subject, but fails WP:GNG and is redundant to Balanced Budget Amendment, which of course has received far more coverage. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No independent secondary source coverage. I don't believe that related think tank position papers qualify to establish notability.  Every idea in Washington has been encapsulated into a think tank position paper. Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Balanced Budget Amendment. I couldn't find any sources on Google News, and this deserves a brief mention in the main article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cato Institute, whose soapbox this is going to be for awhile, I guess. Authors don't have any power to amend the Constitution.  Find a member of Congress to propose it, and it might deserve an article. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 4 December 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.