Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constitution Restoration 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. Secret account 04:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Constitution Restoration Act

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-noteworthy legislation introduced a few times but never even referred out of committee. Small local coverage and one partisan piece, but not enough to establish an article or its notability. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. This Roy Moore-inspired attack on federal court jurisdiction over church-and-state issues got a lot of buzz in the press for several years,, was endorsed by the Idaho legislature (and, I believe, by Louisiana's as well, although the independent sources I found on GNews for that are all paywalled ), and has been the subject of multiple scholarly articles including this one by Mark Tushnet.  I don't think it benefits the encyclopedia (or civic intelligence, for that matter) to bury information like this. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Although it has never gotten out of committee, it has generated a lot of notability. And once notable, always notable. I would like to see the article updated to reflect ongoing efforts to pass it, but that is a different issue. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 17:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd say its come up often enough in Congress and been covered to a significant enough degree to be considered notable. Ducknish (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, subject of this AfD has received significant coverage from multiple non-primary reliable sources where it was the primary subject of the content of the source. From its initial introduction in the 108th Congress it has received continued coverage since it was first written about. Therefore it passes WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and thus satisfies the notability threshold.--JayJasper (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Noteworthy as it is a reflection on the effectiveness of the Constitution, and has taken up some time in Congress in both Houses. However there is the issue of it being old in political terms (last mention 2006) and failed. I lean towards keeping, but I understand why this AfD was started. It's certainly borderline. BerleT (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, plenty of secondary source coverage. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2013 (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.