Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Acts of the 108th United States 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. I did not know that there were other articles that listed Acts of United States Congresses. In light of those other articles, this is a valid and notable list article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

List of Acts of the 108th United States Congress

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable list. Wikipedia is not a directory. I don't think that this information is "indiscriminate", but I don't see the need for this list of laws etc that were enacted by this specific U.S. Congress (2005-2007). Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is only one of the articles in Category:Lists of United States legislation that list acts of the 108th through 114th Congresses. In many areas Wikipedia includes complete lists of "works", such as works of creative artists. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Satisfies LISTN. Acts of Congress are notable as a group. LISTN says we can spin off daughter lists (of the parent list of all Acts of all Congresses) without regard to notability. This seems a reasonable spin off, as dividing them chronologically and by the Congress that passed them is obvious and is just common sense. James500 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2015 (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.