Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 2609; 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 (WP:NAC) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014 (H.R. 2609&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No notability shown for proposed bill. Material is copied-and-pasted from the House report and Congressional Research Service, with no independent coverage. WP is not GovTrack, OpenCongress, or a WP:DIRECTORY of the countless bills that are introduced, nor is it WP:NEWS of Congressional activities. Reywas92 Talk 07:19, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 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 not countless (which means uncountably infinite) and is in any event also irrelevant. Is this bill worthy of notice? Failing that, is there no broader topic to which this page could be redirected? James500 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll give you that, but it's also not an indiscriminate collection of information, like details about numerous failed bills. While not an event, there is no evidence of enduring notability. Even if it were to pass Congress, I do not believe a generic annual appropriations bill is worthy of notice. There is List of bills in the 113th United States Congress, which unfortunately has many other non-notable bills listed. Reywas92 Talk 10:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with listing non-notable items as long as they are notable as a group (which bills are). I suggest redirecting this page to the list of bills. James500 (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - A major appropriations bill that would spend billions (with a B) of dollars is definitely news and notable. The article needs improvement and expansion, not deletion.  A quick Google search turned up numerous additional sources, several of which came out a few days after the article was originally written (which is why they were not initially included).  I've posted those to the talk page and will incorporate them soon.  It's also worth noting that the current failure of this bill to be passed (along with a dozen other appropriations bills) is what led to the current government shutdown - that's news too.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update - I have added a number of additional sources, upgrading the page from 5 sources to 16. I'd be happy to have anyone review these changes.  I strongly believe this article should be kept and that it meets the definition of notability.  Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 18:03, 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 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) 21:40, 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:50, 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) 00:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per HistoricMN44 and JimHarperDC. Not only will this appropriate Billions of $US, but such large bills often enact substantive energy policy.  I've been part of a team that has been adding notable articles on topics concerning energy law.  While I have not worked on this one, it is an obvious extension of this ongoing project. Bearian (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - for full compliance with WP:GNG this needs better independent sourcing but that is an editorial matter as is the present rather poor structure. However, this is a major, and notable, piece of legislation that is worthy of a place in our Project. Improvement not deletion is the better option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:31, 31 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.