Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interstate Abortion Bill


 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Interstate Abortion Bill

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not notable. This article was created right after a short-lived bill did not pass the US legislature, and has had one citation for the last 15 years — a 2006 news article. The other 'citation' is actually an external link to a primary source, and is not a citation. A current internet search finds very little to no coverage about the bill. S.403 is occasionally referred to in brief comments in footnotes of legal papers when discussing other abortion bills (but not this one), and I am unable to locate any other source discussing this bill in any depth. Wikipedia is not a news service and not an indiscriminate database of things. We don't need to 'cover' every single bill that was ever introduced in congress. This 15-year-old unpassed bill is not notable and this article is best removed from Wikipedia along with the orphan redirect page S.403. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Platonk (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: How in the world did you do an Internet search and not find anything? Baptist Press Women's Congressional Policy Institute The Washington Post WTHR Houston Chronicle Arizona Daily Star New York Times. This easily passes WP:GNG. The best course of action would be to combine the House and Senate versions of the bill into this one article. Curbon7 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments(ignoring the PA) are only somewhat helpful.
 * The WaPo article you mention is already (and the only citation) in the article.
 * Your Women's Congressional Policy Institute link is about HR 2200 from 2011-2013, not 2006. There are a lot of similar bills that have tried to pass over the years, but this article is about one bill in one half of congress that didn't go anywhere. There's even been a brand new one introduced this year, S.109 (2021).
 * 4 of the links are all AP News repeats/duplicates (of AP News articles I cannot locate): WTHR, Houston Chron, Tucson (won't display), and NY Times (require subscription). So altogether these count as "1" towards notability.
 * That leaves WaPo, Baptist, and AP News (with their repeats) as the only three sources covering this. (So far.) Pretty much what we've got now are a few articles covering passage of bills in congress which doesn't as yet fulfill WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", though we could debate the word "significant". (Is three 'significant'?)
 * Though you mention "combine the House and Senate versions of the bill", you don't provide any wikilink (nor even text) indicating there is another article mentioning a House version. Searching the internet, I come up with HR 748 (2005) which is only mentioned in passing in Nancy Pelosi as something she voted against. Similar mentions (to "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act", without wikilink) are in a few other (7) politicians' wiki articles as something they voted for or against. Three other mentions of that name are not even referring to this 2005/2006 version of a bill.


 * If you wish to expand on this article, then please do so at this time. You should probably cover ALL of the various renditions of this legislation throughout the years where it has been introduced in congress (always failing to pass into law). You might also want to rename it "Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act" which seems to be the majority name bills of this concept have been referred to; "Interstate Abortion Bill" is just WaPo's headliner. If you rename it and greatly expand its original scope, is that WP:TNT? Afterwards, you definitely will have an article which passes GNG, and I certainly would have no objection to such an article.


 * But this article isn't that comprehensive as-yet-unwritten article. This AfD is about a particular article called "Interstate Abortion Bill", referred to as S.403, as a Senate bill, that was/is an orphan article that someone tried to wedge inappropriately/inadequately into Abortion in the United States as part of their project of helping to remove orphan tags across Wikipedia, rather than someone editing an article intelligently on the topic of abortion legislation. Platonk (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Bills are weird since they can be nomed multiple times but it seems this is the timeline judging by the sources: the House passed a version in Feb 2005, the Senate passed this one in July 2006, and the House repassed the amended version in Sept 2006. These are all the same "Interstate Abortion Bill" it seems like. WP:SIGCOV is not how many sources it has, but how significant is the coverage from within those sources (i.e. is it a passing mention or is it in-depth). These show that it is in-depth coverage from multiple different outlets.
 * WP:TNT has no merit here as the issues with the article aren't so egregious it is unrecoverable. Oh by the way you might wanna check out WP:PAYWALL.
 * I was originally not going to interact with this article after I !voted, but now I'm sufficiently pissed off enough that I'm offering a challenge: 10 (completely fake and imaginary) bucks says I get this to WP:HEY level. Curbon7 (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I did what I could. A rename is probably in order, but I don't know to what. Curbon7 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. The subject is a bit fuzzy-defined doesn't seem to have received continued coverage from multiple independent reliable sources (and the subject is poorly defined, at that). To lump them together as various versions of the same bill feels too much like WP:OR to make it work. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to pass WP:GNG   —  Qwerfjkl  talk  15:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. The media references support treating these related bills as one concept by discussing them together. Widely covered and definitely notable.  dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 03:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, has received significant coverage over time from many different sources.Jackattack1597 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2021 (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.