Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California Marriage Protection Act (2010)


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

California Marriage Protection Act (2010)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

WP:CRYSTAL. It is consistently the case that Wikipedia deletes articles about proposed ballot propositions without sufficient signatures to make it to the ballot, and does so even when the proponents are far more serious than these are, regardless of the degree of news coverage. If this ever gets on the ballot, then the article can be restored. If it doesn't, a wacky news story that happened to be mentioned in the "Isn't this strange" news a few times isn't encyclopedic. THF (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. Also, if the "majority of its following is on Facebook" and someone's webpage, I don't think this has any political significance (even though it has gotten minor local press attention for its humor value). Peacock (talk) 21:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Until someone introduces a bill or gets this on the ballot, it's just talk. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete above, and because this is an encyclopedia, not a newstand. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete a curiosity and publicity stunt, but ultimately a non-notable destined-to-fail piece of pseudo-legislation -Drdisque (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable at present; no prejudice to re-creation if it ever proceeds to getting on a ballot. TJRC (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasonable established guidelines, although if it gets enough notable press, that would trump the usual rules. However, the press coverage does not yet appear to be sufficient.-- SPhilbrick  T  23:00, 18 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.