Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009


 * 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. (NB. This changed from "no consensus" following an appeal to my talkpage to review - in the cold light of day, this result better represents consensus) Fritzpoll (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable piece of legislation. No sources provided that show notability. In-process label has been in place for weeks and no changes have been made recently aside from adjustments to the number of co-sponsors. A Google news search for the term turns up nothing that establishes notability. Even if the bill were to pass, since the Federal Reserve is already audited regularly, so I can't see how a bill that forces another audit(?) would be notable. Burzmali (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I accordingly request that the next administrator speedily close this AfD as "keep" under WP:DEL: Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum. If this does not happen, I request that the admin ask me for further evidence of my charges. JJB 20:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) JJB 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable proposed legislation. This has barely been proposed, barely sent to committee.  As far as I can tell it hasn't even been assigned to a subcommittee yet.  I know the Ron Paul fans really like to generate articles on every piece of legislation he proposes, but that's not a good enough basis to make this legislation notable.  I would feel differently if this had actually made it through subcommittee and committee, and come to the House floor.  List it on List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, and break it out into an individual article in the unlikely event that it someday acquires some notability. TJRC (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: As this is clearly a merge comment in context, I attempted unsuccessfully to change the heading. If this is intended as a delete, the comment should be changed to be consistent with that. JJB 20:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear here, what you attempted to change was another editor's description his own position. It's not a "heading." TJRC (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: Notability research will be expanded here later. (Add: there are now 40 in-article sources, namely, 2 Fox News, 1 Politico.com, 16 newspaper sources (articles in 25 total local papers, only 12 being letters to editor), 5 established university papers, 1 international think tank, 1 Motley Fool blog, 9 aligned sources (the Fed, WND, CFL, Gambling911, Best, GoldSeek), and 5 appropriate SPS (govtrack.us, Congress). Similarly to my comment while "winning" another same-nom debate (NCDK), if 12 reliable editors publish topical letters on a month-old bill, their independent judgment has cumulative effect, besides the other sources.) However, I am not able to consider this nomination in good faith based on my comments at the nominator's immediately previous lost bid at Articles for deletion/Rand Paul, where an editor was still hollering nonnotability after thirty reliable sources had been included. I am also wary of TJRC's suddenness to respond, his former PROD of this article, and what I regard as TJRC's poor merge of We the People Act. Nominator's link to Google vitiates the entire nomination, especially since redoing the search takes it up to a good mix of 50 sources including some significant duplicates . Once again, nominator has failed to invoke any of the alternatives to deletion (editing, tagging, merging, discussion, RFC, transwiki, etc.), which is especially egregious because nominator is well-aware of a good potential merge target, Ron Paul bills. Nominator has also overriden the under-construction tag, even though edits have continued to this article more often than weekly (otherwise a bot would remove the tag). Nominator's history indicates a longtime unresolved content dispute in relation to Ron Paul coverage as documented here.
 * First, do not change another editor's !vote. Second, I will not apologize for my promptness in responding to the AfD.  There's nothing nefarious in this.  I have the article watchlisted, and I saw the AfD and responded.  It's nothing more that that.  I didn't have any hesitation, because I'd considered nominating it, myself.  Third, I don't know what you mean when you refer to "TJRC's suddenness to respond in both AfD's."  I did not participate in Articles for deletion/Rand Paul.  In the meantime, please read WP:AGF. TJRC (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Refactored; I had conflated events. And wariness is compatible with good faith. JJB 21:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * False accusations are not. Apology accepted. TJRC (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, JJB's been accusing me of having an anti-Paul bias for closing in on a year now, I'm used to his remarks. However, normally he at least gives a reason to keep as well.  BTW, I'm still waiting for 'insert name of nefarious Anti-Paul alliance' to send me that toaster ;)  Burzmali (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - --RayBirks (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep No real stated evidence of notability yet, but it probably can be found.  Possibly before the 7 days are up.  But certainly not a bad faith nom, and therefore emphatically not a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: JJB has revamped the page to include sources linked to blogs, letters to the editors of local newspapers and random people rating on the internet to establish notability.  I can't find a single one that satisfies WP:RS, never mind WP:N.  As an aside, please don't just added every single hit you get from Google to an article, John.  The fact that Peter Kolar thinks that the bill is a great idea and the local daily newspaper printed his letter in the mailbag section is not encyclopedic, nor is that "milpo", a blogger at the Moltey Fool's website whose profile includes "No personal info entered", demands that we support it.  Burzmali (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As usual, your characterizations, picking on only 2 of my (first) 24 sources and neglecting article talk, fail to support your sweeping generalizations. JJB 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John, here is the breakdown as I see it:
 * [1], [6], [17] - GovTrack.us. - Primary Sources
 * [2] - Valley Advocate. - Opinion piece in a source that doesn't satisfy WP:RS
 * [3] - Baraboo News Republic. - Letter to editor
 * [4] - Los Angeles Daily News. - Not available online
 * [5] - Federal Reserve Board - Doesn't mention bill
 * [7], [10] - WorldNetDaily - Not a WP:RS for anything concerning Ron Paul
 * [8] - Motley Fool - Not a WP:RS as source is an unidentified blogger
 * [9] - Best Syndication News - Not a WP:RS as it is a self-published source
 * [11] - Monroe News Star. - Letter to editor
 * [12] - Auburn Journal - Not a WP:RS, unidentified blogger
 * [13] - Oakland Tribune. - Blog, without significant coverage of topic
 * [14] - Augusta Chronicle - Article consists of comments from readers
 * [15] - Dothan Eagle - Letter to editor
 * [16] - Appeal-Democrat - Letter to editor
 * [18] - Glenn Beck (Fox News) - Interview with Ron Paul, not independent (HR 1207 is mentioned only by Ron Paul), not significant coverage
 * [19] - Texas Straight Talk - not independent, Paul's own words
 * [20] - GoldSeek - Not a WP:RS for much of anything, not significant coverage
 * [21] - Campaign for Liberty - Not independent, RP's mouthpiece
 * [22] - The Appalachian (Appalachian State University) - Student newspaper, not significant coverage.
 * [23] - Kansas City Star - No mention of topic
 * [24] - Student Life (Washington University) - No mention of topic
 * [25] - Gambling911.com - Frankly, I didn't visit this one, I highly doubt that they are a WP:RS.
 * Now, those are your 25 sources, please tell me which one you consider significant. Burzmali (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a point of order, if this is kept then shouldn't it be called the Federal Reserve Transparency Bill of 2009 rather than the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009? I'm more familiar with UK parliamentary procedure than with what goes on in the US, but I thought that the same distinction was made there between a Bill (proposed law) and an Act of Congress (legislation that has actually been passed). Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've already given my delete !vote above, so this is just a comment, with further thoughts; this is pretty much my thought process that went into that !vote, but I think it's worth documenting in further detail. My thoughts here are pretty much geared toward U.S.-based congressional legislation, because that's what I know.  Much of it would apply to state or local legislation, although I believe the bars in those cases will be substantially higher, since the such laws affect so fewer people than those enacted at the congressional level.  I don't have enough background outside the US to comment on proposed legislation in non-US jurisdictions.


 * The noteworthiness or lack thereof of proposed legislation if problematic. Pretty much every piece of congressional legislation will get some news coverage.  Newsworthiness is not notability, as that term is used in Wikipedia.  It is not sufficient to have a list of pieces of news coverage and use that, in and of itself, as a basis to claim notability.  Unless the proposed legislation has clear indicia that it is notable, it's really not worthy of an article.  One good indicium is that the legislation actually passes.  But that's not in itself even enough: Congress passes a lot of legislation that's not particularly notable.  The fact that a bill does not pass is an indication that it is not notable, but it's not conclusive.  The controversy over the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, for example, was so great that I think that it would have been considered notable, even if it had not passed.


 * This is somewhat applicable to proposed constitutional amendments, as well, except that because amending the Constitution is a pretty big deal, it's not that unusual for attempts to do so to be notable, even if the attempts are ultimately unsuccessful; see, e.g., the articles on the Bricker Amendment and the Equal Rights Amendment. Those amendment attempts are long-dead, but are still discussed today.  Of course, for those two citable instances, there are a lot of amendment attempts that died and are not particularly notable.


 * It is worth bearing in mind here that Notability is not temporary: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." As applied to this particular case, I really don't think that people will be talking about, or otherwise taking note of, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009 after the sun sets on the current U.S. Congress in 2011.


 * My thoughts here are not limited to the FRT Act. We have other articles that I feel the same way about.  As a specific example, we've got Patent Reform Act of 2005 (did not pass), Patent Reform Act of 2007 (did not pass) and Patent Reform Act of 2009 (still pending).  I assume that the editors who created each of these articles believed that the bills had a pretty good chance of becoming law; I personally believe that the 2009 one will.  But with the benefit of hindsight, it seems pretty clear that the 2005 and 2007 acts ultimately were not notable; and maybe the 2009 will turn out not to be as well.  What's notable here is a topic like "proposed patent reform," which would discuss the various proposals that have been put forward, including these three acts (most of which duplicate each other, anyway).  If the 2009 Act passes, then great, have an article on it that covers what it actually will have done.


 * In a similar vein, the FRT Act just doesn't meet the standard for notability. If there is an article on proposed economic or banking reforms, then a discussion of the FRT is probably worth including there; and as I said above, given the existence of List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul, it's worth including there.


 * My general view here, to sum up, is that: 1) proposed legislation needs some actual indicia of notability to be notable in a Wikipedia sense; 2) newsworthiness can be almost presumed for proposed legislation at the congressional level, and is neither the same as notability nor in itself sufficient to confer notability, but it may be one factor; and 3) passage of the legislation is a strong (but not necessarily conclusive) indicium of notability. Applying this to the present article, I do not see that it meets these criteria for inclusion as an article. TJRC (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You asked me to comment. We're not a guide to the USCode, where it matters very much what passed and what did not; we're an encyclopedia covering notable things of the present and the past. Using your example, the history of attempts to reform the US patent legislation is of such importance to anyone who cares about patents in or out of the US (if only because US legislation has in the past bee on totally different principles from everywhere else), that every serious legislative attempt is notable. The current bill and the compromises in it and the debate over it and the comments on it, and the interpretations that will be made of it are very much influenced by the response to previous attempts.  This does not mean that every attempt to pass legislation on a national level is notable. But the attempt is sometimes as notable as the actual passed Act--or even more so: the failure of the Equal Rights Amendment is even more indicative of American thinking of the period than it would have been if it had passed.  And the debate can be more relevant than the bill itself, for either passed or failed. As for legislation under current consideration, the same guidelines as for any news story apply: is it clear yet whether it will actually be significant, & is the situation stable enough to write about?. DGG (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do we include? At a national level for nations of which we have comprehensive coverage, we should include every piece of legislation of significant public importance or where there has been significant public debate-- and every attempt noteworthy for legal or historic or social reasons. Just the same as for all other public events. They're the basic part of political history, and need very detailed coverage. My caveat about nations for which we have detailed coverage, is that we should if possible cover the most important things in a country first, & it might not be wise to try from the start to be comprehensive. At a national level what don't we include: private bills, of course, and technical changes, and commemorations, and the like. Legislation dealing with special interest does get included if the special interests are significant, for we aim to be comprehensive.
 * This does necessarily mean separate articles. When there isn't that much to say, then combination articles are a good compromise, as everywhere else. it's the coverage that matters, not the division into articles.
 * At a subnational level, the number of people affected are smaller, and we therefore need a fairly high level of significance. But the significance can be outside the state as well, as a model for elsewhere. At a local level, I do not know how to handle this and other local matters--in principle, being not paper, we should be able to cover very minutely. In practice, its not where our efforts should be spent.
 * and the "very weak" in my keep was because I am not convinced of the significance of this rather routine piece of posturing. Number of co-sponsors is not decisive in the US system, especially for things where legislators will want to have something to point to for their core constituency. DGG (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Significant coverage in the press makes this worth its own article. Not even sure why it was nominated in the first place! Buspar (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, this is about newsworthiness, not notability. TJRC (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Given its role in the recent Tea Party movement, that suggests it'll be undergoing some sustained support and a role in public discourse. So it's clearly notable right now and there's every indication it'll be newsworthy for some time in the future. At the least, this AfD is premature since this is a current developing topic. Buspar (talk) 07:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. In addition to the numerous cosponsors, the bill has received notable coverage in the media, as indicated by the sources. The editorials are not trivial either&mdash;they show that the newspaper considered them worth publishing. --darolew 20:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, a comment. The nominator stated: "Even if the bill were to pass, since the Federal Reserve is already audited regularly, so I can't see how a bill that forces another audit(?) would be notable." This indicates that the nominator does not actually understand the subject of the article. The act would require significantly more public disclosure of information than the current 'audits'. --darolew 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Find an independent reliable source that says that then, or even talks about the bill at all. Burzmali (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Bad energy to nominate this during Tax Protest week. I'm adding a dozen more sources right now. JJB 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I'm keenly interested in Burzmali's latest response. JJB 19:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment- Still no notable sources. Burzmali (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This should be kept or at least merged with another article. THis Federal Reserve Tranparancy Act is mentioned in other wikipedia articles. This is very notable in searches and in our own wikipedia. J. D. Hunt (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep While the article is not perfect it can be improved; the topic is one of the main themes that Ron Paul and his supporters are hitting on and I don't think anyone is advocating deleting the main Ron Paul article. 147.26.202.142 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2009 (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.