Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009


 * 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. One two three... 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a piece of legislation introduced earlier in this 111th United States Congress; this bill has been widely mentioned among those who favor gun rights as a threat to those Second Amendment rights. However, it has exactly zero co-sponsors, thus raising the issue of whether its having an article gives it undue weight. I think it does. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see how this is undue weight. You said the bill is "widely mentioned", and that makes it notable.  I would be happy to see as many articles as possible on other notable bills.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  15:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On the contrary, I did not say the bill is widely mentioned; I said that it was widely mentioned among gun rights activists as a bill that would threaten those rights. However, it is not widely discussed in the mainstream media, nor is it anywhere near notable enough for an article. There are plenty of bills in Congress that one could write an article about, but not a bill like this which is supported by exactly one person (Rep. Bobby Rush) and has no chance of being passed.... Suffice to say, it is not notable, and giving an article to a bill like this gives undeserved and undue weight to the issue. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't buy the "undue weight" argument—if the article is neutrally written, there should not be a problem. This subject is plenty notable; I was able to find several reliable sources.  So I don't see a reason to delete it.  —  Jake   Wartenberg  02:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we have different understandings of undue weight here; I don't doubt that the article itself is written in a neutral way, but I believe that the fact that there is even an article for this bill is giving undue weight to the issue. But if you don't like that argument, then look at it from the perspective of WP:N. This bill is not notable. Only one person in Congress supports it. It has no chance of passage. Bills that have been debated endlessly and failed to pass, bills that were vetoed, even bills that became law -- many of these do not have their own articles. So in that light, a bill like this is as far from notable as possible, short of never being introduced in the first place. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - unlikely to pass, non-notable pending bill. Bearian (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsifficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Provisional Delete: until it passes, then WP:N applies for inclusion.--It's me...Sallicio!$\color{Red} \oplus$ 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - If only to avoid setting a bad precedent. The bill itself is ludicrously aggressive.  It'll never even make it to the floor of either house for a vote, let alone pass.  If Wikipedia attempted to support an article on every half-baked bill cooked up by congress, they would be rapidly overwhelmed.  The bill's very notoriety is just a thinly-veiled scare tactic designed to elicit more donations for the NRA and such.  Take it down.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.50.14.109 (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no chance of it ever coming to a vote as it has no cosponsors. Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a repository for every no-hope bill that a Congressman suggests. 129.67.116.26 (talk) 21:57, 23 May 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.