Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II


 * 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 of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask?  00:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Detailed breakdown of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title II
This article is not an appropriate encyclopaedia article. I believe it counts as original research, because clearly it is not reporting someone else's detailed breakdown of the act, but carrying out its own. While a clause by clause explanation of legislation would be appropriate in a legal textbook, an encyclopaedia should summarise information about an act rather than carry out an analysis of it. Worldtraveller 23:13, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - on February 10, 2006, it was a Wikipedia featured article. There have only been a few minor edits since then.  Seems that there was a community consensus that this was a worthy article. &mdash;ERcheck @ 00:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the record, I strongly object to using this article's featured status as an argument for inclusion. That perspective turns wikipedia policy (that any AFD-survivable article can be featured) on its head. Raul654 23:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (featured article director)
 * Ummm... say that again? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "Encyclopedic" (e.g, able to survive AFD) is not a criteria we check for on the FAC (because, frankly, I don't want FAC to turn into the shitfest that AFD is). We simply assume it is encyclopedic. So I object to using "it's a featured article" as a justification for keeping it on the AFD when the FA status is based on the assumption that it would survive AFD. Raul654 15:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair call. - Ta bu shi da yu 15:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are 30 citations to show it's not original research. (Of course, more cites are always welcome.) Moreover, a clause-by-clause breakdown of important legislation is the encyclopedic approach &mdash; certainly by the very definition of the word, whose antonym is "summary." PRRfan 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See below about the cites. Now we're not like other encyclopaedias it is true, but can you find a single other general interest encyclopaedia that has ever attempted to provide a detailed breakdown of a piece of legislation?  What they do is describe how an act arose, summarise what it does, talk about criticisms, that kind of thing - Parliament Act is a good example.  Clause by clause breakdowns should not be our business.  Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Whyever not? We evidently aren't very good at doing some main articles. Have you looked at the USA PATRIOT Act? I've already explained I'm working backwards. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The state of other articles is not relevant to the encyclopaedic worthiness of this one. Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Protest in the most strongest possible terms - I spent a great deal of time on this article, having it listed for deletion is a slap in the face. I consider this to be a violation of WP:POINT. The article, though it needs updating, is a featured article! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How much work you put into it doesn't actually matter, unfortunately, if it's not an encyclopaedic article. I personally would like to see this article deleted, so how can that possibly be POINT? Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Bugger. Just realised the page I was contributing to. This is not original research. I am writing about what the Act says in plain English. Maybe I should be assuming good faith here, but it's a little tough as you are trying to get an article I spent a lot of time and effort on deleted. I am assuming WP:POINT because you voted down my other WP:FAC article based on the title, not really on the content. I challenge you to find any part of the atricle that is my own opinion. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, so you are reading the act and interpreting it into plain english - you are not reporting someone else's published interpretation of the act into plain english. Therefore, it is original research.  You completely misunderstood my objection to your FAC, which was entirely about content.  You seem to be saying that because you have worked on an article, someone who thinks it should be deleted is automatically acting in bad faith - very arrogant indeed.  Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every single summary anywhere on Wikipedia condenses information and explains it in plain English, if it uses technical language. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep It seems as though you did this because you need a case against Ta bu shi da yu's push for featured article status of USA PATRIOT Act, Title III, Subtitle A, but this article was ruining it. I say that that is bad WikiEthic. Please consider removing your request that this be deleted, and thus save yourself more criticism. Thank you, Chuck 04:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I did this because, while I was complaining about the unencyclopaedic nature of one article, another similar one was pointed out to me. While at least the first unencyclopaedic article was at an encyclopaedic title, this one isn't.  Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So let me get this straight: you listed an article for deletion which took me about a month to write because you didn't like the title? Whatever happened to the page move button?! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The time it took you is irrelevant. The content is unencyclopaedic - the title precludes anything encyclopaedic being written in its place.  Hence, a deletion nomination.  Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Again I ask why you can't move it? If you are that concerned about it, moving it to something like Sections of Title II of the USA PATRIOT Act would also allow commentary to be added to each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously. Nomination not in the best of faith, perhaps. Hornplease 05:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What on earth makes you say that? Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, well-sourced with a humongously long list of references, definitely not OR. Kimchi.sg 09:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It has references, yes, but they are not actually references which verify the presented detailed breakdown, they verify certain points within that breakdown. The difference may be subtle, but it's very very significant.  Worldtraveller 10:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it so different? I am explaining what the Act says. I'm going to keep writing these articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just the problem. 'You are doing the explaining, by means of your own research.  Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, how in the world is it OR? It just goes by section numbers, and those are part of the act itself; are you suggesting that, say, breaking down Hamlet by acts would be OR? Kirill Lok s  h in 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, a scene by scene analysis of Hamlet absolutely would be original research - how could it be anything else? Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, here is why I would like it kept: so far in the USA PATRIOT Act, we have not got any real information on what the Act actually says. Orin Kerr once justly took us to task for such an atrocious bit of writing. Well, I decided to do something about it: I must admit I was somewhat stung by his commentary. On review, he's right though. The article as it stands is a dog's breakfast. So what I'm doing is to write about each of the titles and any commentary that I find on them. I'm currently writing about Title III, which is taking quite a while. I don't think it's unreasonable to read the Act, then write about what each section says. This article was originally in the article USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, but I was forced to split the article when I discovered that my article had ballooned to about 120-130KB. It was only logical that I summarised it and then put the detailed breakdown in its own article. The information is all good in there, and as several people have pointed out it is fully sourced. I genuinely don't see how splitting an article is a large cause for concern, especially when this article is just basically explaining the Act in plainer English. I also fail to see how it might be anything but an article written from a neutral POV. Eventually I'll be working on the other articles, so expect to see a few more of them around the traps. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As I say, the state of other articles is irrelevant. What's happening here is that you are interpreting the act - original research.  The references you cite cannot be used to verify your interpretation of what the act means in plain english.  Therefore, the article is original research and is also unverifiable.  Therefore, it should be deleted.  Worldtraveller 15:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep pending policy discussion: I can see how this could be considered OR, but if that's the case, there are further reaching implications&mdash;most book/movie/drama articles would be deleted or at least have their plot summaries removed, for example. The scope of WP:NOR needs to be debated first, before deleting an FA. In a perfect world, this article would be based on the discussion found in a law textbook or on some other published breakdown of the law, but in its current form, it's still a strong article.  TBSDY, for the Patriot Act articles you write in the future, would it be possible for you to find sources like those that Worldtraveller is requesting? --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If I have to do that, I'm stopping work on the USA PATRIOT Act articles. So the short answer is: "no". Do you people want a decent article about the USA PATRIOT Act or not?!? Why the heck can't you people use some common sense?! sheesh! - Ta bu shi da yu 15:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that a "No, there are no such books?" or "No, I can't be bothered to look them up?" I'm going with the former, but you never know... Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Just asking. Secondary sources are always a plus. But note that I haven't taken a position on whether or not this is OR; I've just said that the policy needs to be discussed before the article should be considered for deletion. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. per ERcheck. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 15:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - a scene by scene literary analysis of Hamlet is inappropriate, but a plot summary isn't. Apply that analogy here, and what do you get? Johnleemk | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought you'd get a vote for deletion, this being a scene by scene analysis rather than a summary.... Worldtraveller 15:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Show me the analysis for goodness sake! This is a summary of each section. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have specifically said it's not a summary but a translation into plain english. Do your sources verify that what you say the act means in plain english is actually what it means in plain english?  Worldtraveller 16:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Are you saying you haven't followed the sources and you are saying that this is original research?! Of course it's in plain English! It's a summary, isn't it? Sheesh. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a summary of the legislation, it's one person's translation of the legislation into what they interpret as its meaning in plain english. Worldtraveller 16:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. OK, time to take that Wikibreak I promised myself. Can you please review WP:SNOW and WP:IAR? Also, please find some common sense. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * An analysis would analyse the material. A summary would summarise it. The latter is encyclopedic; the former is not. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but if you mean that you think this article is the latter I would have to disagree - I don't think it can claim to be a summary when it's about as long as the original legislation is. Comparing the original legislation with this detailed breakdown, many of the sections of this are longer.  Worldtraveller 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The stated reason for deletion is, "not an appropriate encyclopaedia article," but that's not really what's going on here. This is a dispute about the content of the article, not the topic. Such disputes should be kept to talk pages unless the article cannot be sourced and rendered NPOV. This is not such a case. IMHO this article is well written, well sourced, and as NPOV as possible, but anyone who disagrees with me can, of course, edit the page or bring their concerns to the talk page. -Harmil 16:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually this is all about the topic - by virtue of being called 'detailed breakdown of...' it is unencyclopaedic. The article under discussion might be well written and well sourced but it's still original research. Ask yourself, do the sources listed allow you to verify Ta Bu Shi Da Yu's personal interpretation of what the act means in plain english? Worldtraveller 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as per everyone above, and the fact that it's an FA. I closed it as a speedy keep per WP:SNOW but was reverted. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems ) 16:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's keep the discussion going for a little longer. --Spangineer[es] (háblame)  17:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Friendly question for Worldtraveller: is there a difference between "one person's translation of the legislation" and one person's translation of a legal textbook's description?  Either way, the author of the article has to change the text so that it is not a copyvio while attempting to perserve the meaning. --Spangineer[es]  (háblame)  17:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The difference as I see it is that a translation of a piece of legislation into plain english, which this piece attempts to be, requires analysis of the legislation - that is, original research. From the sources given, I can't verify that what is claimed to be the plain english meaning actually is the plain english meaning unless I also analysethe legislation - the sources cited do not show that that is the case.  On the other hand, if someone else had already summarised the essentials of the legislation, it's a simple job to describe that summary and cite your source - it's then very easy to verify from the source that what is claimed to be a summary of the legislation actually is a summary of the legislation.  Worldtraveller 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Oran   e    (t)   (c)   (e)  17:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per ERcheck. --Oldak Quill 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:OR, in relevant part, states "any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position" [emphasis added] . This is not OR, as it is not advancing a position.  GRBerry 17:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me try to word this correctly. Hamlet is a play by Shakespear that represents one intertwined writing that can be summarised under one plot summary. The USA PATRIOT Act, Title II is a non-intertwined piece of writing that can only be summarised section by section. Just because the author has combined multiple sections, in order to avoid hundreds of articles, and has thus placed those summaries one after another, does not change the summaries to analyses. Now that you are aware of the similarities between this and other articles sumaries, I reccommend (based on your Be Bold attitude) that you go and delete/change the following sections of the following articles, as they, according to your interprestation of an encyclopedic article, are not.
 * Hamlet - Hamlet Plot Summary and Hamlet - Hamlet as a Character
 * Starship Troopers - Characters in Starship Troopers
 * And of course many many more in both Featured articles and not. It seems as though you are suggesting copyrighted material be inserted as the breakdown of the sections. Unfortunately, that's not allowed on Wikipedia. Chuck 17:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assessment that it is impossible to summarise the act without breaking it down section by section. The author has interpreted the act section by section to give what he considers a plain english summary of it, and that's original research.  Worldtraveller 19:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Looks worthy to me. &mdash; RJH 18:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. Plenty of strong arguments above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's an FA, and apparently recently made so, how would FA voters not pick up on OR? It's not that easy to make an FA after all. Besides, references are references, I dunno what else to tell ya. Homestarmy 15:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe they didn't pick up on it because they weren't looking for it? The references provided actually don't allow me to verify that the act has the plain english meaning that Ta Bu Shi Da Yu says it has.  Worldtraveller 16:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of an FA nom where people didn't look for extensive references on a subject :/. Homestarmy 16:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a content dispute and an article naming dispute, not a notability dispute. -Sean Curtin 01:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm saying the content is unencyclopaedic, and the title is also unencyclopaedic. Worldtraveller 09:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was prominent enough to be featured, and that says something about the article's quality. Deiaemeth 08:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's a poor quality article - I'm saying it's an unencyclopaedic article. Worldtraveller 09:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is in no way original research unless every article in Wikipedia which interprets an original document can be considered original research. Dabbler 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you name another article that interprets an original document in the same way this does? Worldtraveller 15:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.  Ardenn  22:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep. This whole debate seems very much a non debate and rather a one man vendetta. Surely it is clear that the majority of people think the article should be included, despite the crusade entered upon by the forementioned critic? The article enables anyone who might have an issue to look it up, failure to have the article would mean people dont have the opportunity to look up quickly and efficiently the inns and outs of the act. And for that matter, almost all articles on history on wikipedia are subjective, and often inaccurate. That does not mean they should be deleted, that means they should be corrected. So if you, Worldtraveller, have such an issue with the article, why don't you correct the points you disagree with?. Fredheir 23:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The PATRIOT Act is notable, and an article on it should be considered encyclopaedic. Even if you think it's not factual enough, it can certainly be edited to become so, in which case the answer is to edit it, not to delete it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 07:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Not any article on it can be considered encyclopaedic - this is one man's legal interpretation of the act rather than an encyclopaedic summary of the act. Worldtraveller 08:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ultra Obvious Super Speedy Keep. And a slap in the face for Worldtraveller. --GTubio 21:37, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * A little bit of maturity and civility helps us all have productive discussions. Your comment lacks them both.  Worldtraveller 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you are trying to talk to like every voter, that's not exactly normal for an AfD :/. Homestarmy 22:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, because I'm trying to argue my case, someone can be rude to me? This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote.  Worldtraveller 22:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No its just not normal for a nominator or really anyone to try and talk to every single voter and convince them to vote the other way, it seems....odd :/ . Homestarmy 17:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * When listing a featured article for deletion, it seems appropriate for the nominator to try and justify his actions. Rude comments like GTubio's are not in any way called for.  Worldtraveller 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - something which people don't seem to be considering is the nature of the references here. I see lots of comments saying 'it's got 30 references, it must be OK', but actually two thirds of the references are the law itself.  This is a bit like me writing an article about, say, the Helix Nebula and saying 'it's 100 arcminutes across (reference: the object itself)' - the only way i can verify that this article's analysis of the act is correct is to do my own analysis, just as if I told you the size of the Helix Nebula that I'd worked out myself from looking at it, and that number didn't appear in any peer reviewed journals, your only way of verifying my statement would be to carry out your own observations.  I don't doubt that most people would agree that would not be acceptable, and would count as original research.  Now how is this situation different?  Worldtraveller 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? The act is a primary source. A nebula can't be any source; your personal original research findings on said nebula are a primary source however (and incidentally are not accepted on Wikipedia, as per WP:NOR). The act is a valid primary source; your unpublished findings on the nebula's size aren't. Johnleemk | Talk 03:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here about primary sources. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe my analogy is not the best. Let me try a different one - this detailed breakdown is 80% as long as the piece of legislation it's looking at.  If someone put up an article called 'Detailed breakdown of Hamlet' which was 80% as long as the play, and which referenced the play throughout, wouldn't you think that could be considered original research?  It would seem clear to me that would be unencyclopaedic.  Worldtraveller 18:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. --Jelligraze 02:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic ... and an Act is a legitimate primary source for its own overt contents (though not for contentious matters of interpretation). Similarly, a movie is a legitimate primary source for what it contains (though not for contestable interpretations). I realise that there is no bright line between overt contents and interpretation, but the concept of original research has to be applied with common sense, rather than in a spirit of radical epistemological scepticism, and not stretched too far beyond the job it is designed for (eliminating crackpot theories, etc). I also endorse Johnleemk's comments here. Metamagician3000 11:19, 5 May 2006 (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.