Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation 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. SynergeticMaggot 07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Jose Celso Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act
No way is every minor bill passed by Congress that, in its entirety, names a building after someone notable. The self-reference only harms the article - not makes it more notable. zafiroblue05 | Talk 15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep What makes this bill notable is that it is the first bill in history that contains an article from Wikipedia. This also gives our Pedia some degree of credibility. Tony the Marine 15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm forced to agree. Keep. DS 16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Bills introduced into the US Congress and passed into law are notable per se. John254 15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep First of all, I'm an inclusionist. Second of all, I agree with Tony is his assertion of this article's notability.  Thirdly, the article is well researched. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Inclusion and not exclusion is the key point here. I have seen many fake Wikipedia articles on this website that have survived the test of time. Many of them look like they were practical jokes. You should spend your time hunting those articles and focusing less on such a valid article as this one. --XLR8TION 17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Per all above comments.Nnfolz 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Also would like to stress XLR8TION point. There are so many wothless articles around wikipedia and I don't get why u tag for deletion one that is well researched and writen.Nnfolz 17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Apart from the fact that it is just pretty dang cool that text written by Tony the Marine was used on a bill before congress, freedom of information is pretty important. Rmt2m 17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep We need more well researched credible articles not fewer. Why this would be considered for deletion is beyond me. Also I want to be able to research US laws on wikipedia, not to get lawyerese about them, but to find out details like the ones in this article.Lkinkade 18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Marine 69-71, if it's an article about a real law (there are many on wikipedia). I don't see any harm in the fact that it's a minor bill. Wikipedia is not paper. But the article could use better references. --Qyd 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep A law passed by the US congress is notable and the fact that it has a wikipedia connection is even better. The article is well researched and written and belongs in this encyclopedia.--Looper5920 19:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - well written article, and bill cites the Wiki. Should remain. --Murcielago 21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Emphatically KEEP - an excellent article about a relevant topic. The bill is the world's first legislative act to cite Wikipedia, and if that isn't encyclopedic (and historic), I don't know what is.  I think some folks the deletionist bandwagon had better look for something better to do. David Cannon 21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sounds like WP:VANITY from Marine 69-71's part. --Abu Badali 23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Factual, sourced, well researched record of a legislative act that is of historical interest aside from WP connection.  Also the first legislative act to cite Wikipedia.  Definite keeper.  SWAdair 23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Well written article about a marginal topic. I really don't want to see this cited as justification for lots of articles on bills to name a post office.-gadfium 23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Normally this would be a pretty marginal topic, but given that it is a first (and especially because it is a first regarding Wikipedia!) it raises its notability quotient above other such bills. Grutness...wha?  23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I put on on DYK for precisely the reasons identified by Tony the Marine. Don't think it is vain or overly self-referential. -- Samir   धर्म 00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, partially because the WP reference makes it stand out, but I'd probably be inclined to vote keep even aside from that. I do recommend exclusion of Tony's name and user name from the article, though, both to avoid the potential appearance of vanity and in accordance with the general idea of the project as a collective work. Everyking 03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I believe the article is significant, and the mention of Wikipedia should be left in. Lots of people are discussing the validity of Wikipedia, and whether or not it should be referenced for papers/articles, etc.; if this is indeed the first bill to reference Wikipedia, that's notable. By the way, I find this reference disturbing; Wikipedia is a great place to learn, but a terrible place to cite. CalebNoble 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Any bill that passes is fair game for inclusion here. I would object if the bill did not pass though (few proposed bills are notable on their own until/if they get passed). --mav 14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - but, more so for the WP angle the the post office angel. I think post office entries should, generally, be put under that person's page, but I could be swayed the other way on that issue with good arguments.  Huzzah, Tony!--DavidShankBone 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Tony, you're getting famous! Kidding aside, I think this is a relevant article to have. It is an historic moment for Wikipedia! Smylere Snape 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep - This is an important historical event in Wikipedia. The credibity gained should be celebrated by every writer in Wikipedia.  Antonio Martin 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - This isn't just of interest to us. That a proposed law cited Wikipedia would be an interesting news item in most sources, we shouldn't bend over backwards to avoid it here. AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per AnonEMouse. Rbraunwa 03:21, 17 August 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.