Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  08:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:ENN. Not every Act of Congress is worthy of an article, and there's no assertion of notability here - it doesn't even call for an action save an annual report. MSJapan (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Prior AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/US Department of Global Anti-semitism. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably should have been deleted the first time, too. Too many keep votes had nothing to do with policy whatsoever. MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Article doesn't cite any sources or even assert the notability of the law. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 16:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge + redirect into Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; as it is an annual report made by this Bureau, --Ne0 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * One among thousands of others. Why is this particular report notable such that it should be mentioned in a Bureau-level article? MSJapan (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- no indications of notability or significance, and no secondary RS offered. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:48, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to believe that act can be passed by Congress without attracting significant coverage in independent reliable sources, even if such sources are not readily available online. Surely there are legal reference works that cover every such act? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment You'd still have to bring them here. And significant coverage means more than a mention of the act or details about the act. It means discussion. Doug Weller  talk 16:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No claim to notability made – as the nominator noted, Acts of Congress aren't inherently notable. If Congress receives a global report on antisemitism each year (as the legislation seems to require), the report itself might be notable. But the enabling legislation doesn't seem to be.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  09:14, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I actually looked for that on the off chance that might be true. It's not. From 2004-15, there's only three reports available from the State Dept. online, I think two of them aren't the report required by the Act, and the newest is 2010. The one I read was tremendously boring, and seriously reads like a high school social studies report.  I could feel the Powerpoint slides turning as I read.  It's really just a digest of collected events. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, can't say I'm overly surprised.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  08:32, 13 September 2016 (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.