Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamberlain-Ferris 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   speedy keep. per unanimous HEY turnaround (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Chamberlain-Ferris Act

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable, unreferenced. Ṝ ed M ark V iolinist Drop me a line 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Southern Pacific Transportation Company (which is what Southern Pacific Railroad Company redirects to) Not notable on its own, but it is in context. - Mgm|(talk) 13:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think that every act passed by a national or sub-national legislature is likely to generate coverage from reliable sources. This one probably did at that time. I am going to argue that inherent liability ought to be extended to cover legislation such as this. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although I agree with Eastmain, I would also point out that this particular Act was especially notable. It was a significant step in a political issue that has endured for well over a century over that involves federal vs. local control of these lands, school funding, and many other issues. It may need to be expanded a little to fully establish notability; I have made a few tweaks, and will try to continue that process. -Pete (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.   -- Elonka 17:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:Uncle G has sourced this, and in its current expanded and much-improved form, it should stay.  --Lockley (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: this action determined the fate of a significant portion of Oregon lands.  As others have alluded, an act of Congress of this magnitude ought to stand on its own. —EncMstr (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm sure there was plenty of coverage in the media of the day, plus it has been the subject of both state and federal litigation, including a challenge of the validity at SCOTUS. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment/question: Anyone object to snowball keeping the article to spare unnecessary discussion? I'm sure the original nom and the first !vote were made in good faith, as the article was only a sentence or two then and wholly uncited. I believe notability has been thoroughly established in the meantime though, and the article has been expanded significantly. Speaking for myself, I don't see a need to keep this nomination active anymore. -Pete (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above comments; a historically significant piece of legislation that was also the subject of a Supreme Court case. I'd like for more references to be added to the article, however. Nsk92 (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2008 (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.