Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 2848; 113th Congress)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Department of State Operations and Embassy Security Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 2014 (H.R. 2848&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a House report or the CBO, from which most of the text is copied-and-pasted, nor is is GovTrack, OpenCongress or another WP:DIRECTORY of bills. Existence of a bill in Congress does not make it notable, regardless of its passage status (this has been passed in one house, like hundreds of other bills). WP is not news, and standard coverage of Congressional actions does not provide notability. Reywas92 Talk 06:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)


 * NOTDIRECTORY and NOTNEWS have no application to this article as it is not a list and it is not about a historical event (which a document is not). The number of bills introduced is also irrelevant. Is this bill worthy of notice? Failing that, is there no broader topic to which this page could be redirected? James500 (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Possibly this should be redirected to the List of bills in the 113th United States Congress. See the Afd for the other bill. James500 (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure how this would help or what it would accomplish. That list only includes bills that have actual articles on wikipedia already, not all 4,000+ bills that have simply been introduced in the 113th Congress.  The list is curated to include only super controversial bills (that had preexisting articles in some cases, like CISPA), bills with a lot of media attention (appropriations bills, the immigration bill before it passed the Senate), or bills that have passed at least one chamber of Congress.  Passing a chamber of Congress isn't easy.  Redirecting the page back to a list with no information at all on the bill doesn't seem like a helpful thing to do.  Maybe I misunderstood... HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - This bill passed in the House and would spend $17 billion - a lot of money - to improve embassy security (among other things). Embassy security has very much been in the news due to both the Benghazi attacks and the recent closures from this summer.  The fact that the Senate hasn't passed this bill yet (if ever) is also a contributing factor to the current US government shutdown (since no funds have been appropriated, which is what this bill would do).  I have added a list of additional sources to the talk page that, again, a quick google search turned up.  I'll try to incorporate them when I can, although I'd love to see other editors help out.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Expansion and inclusion of more independent sources seems the obvious cure to the problem of insufficient evidence of notability. But this discussion seems to illustrate the limits of using independent sources alone as a proxy for notability. The trend in consumption of current events is away from intermediation (i.e. news reports) and toward direct consumption of information from primary sources. If people go directly to source documents that reflect significant developments rather than consuming "news" stories about them - because the news media is failing to report well on notable subjects - surely that does not mean that those subjects are less notable or significant. A major bill, introduced and passed in the world's greatest deliberative body, apportioning billions in resources is almost certainly notable, and I think this is a poor candidate for deletion. JimHarperDC (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a controversial piece of legislation, introduced in response to significant recent events, that, if passed would entail major expenditure. Agreed that better independent sourcing is needed to meet WP:GNG but that seems a matter for editorial improvement rather than deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:38, 28 October 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.