Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate


 * 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. Shereth 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate

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

Violates WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. Anything relevant here can and should be incorporated into Political positions of Barack Obama. Besides, if we have a page like this for Obama, we'll need one for every significant member of a national assembly worldwide to avoid POV problems, and doing that would get way out of hand. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 18:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cross reference - There is a similar AfD at List of amendments proposed by Barack Obama in the United States Senate. -- Bebestbe (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and per general redundancy with this. Wikipedia is not for just repeating source information, even in lists. Krator 18:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - I'd rather not open this can of worms. Relevant info should be merged to Obama's political position's, per nom.  TN ‑ X - Man  18:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I completely agree with Tnxman307. ¢rassic ! (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is whack. Wikipedia is not paper. I don't see this as a "can of worms" at all. The more neutral, accurate, and usefully presented information we can present about elected leaders, the better. Having more content about one politician than another does not constitute a "POV problem" in and of itself. POV is about how content is written, not about systemic bias in coverage, and the remedy for systemic bias in coverage is never to delete content in the area covered better, but simply to add content in the under-represented area. By this logic, we could delete nearly every article about US politics because we have virtually no articles about the politics of several other countries. A list of bills sponsored by a senator is more than a simple directory or unorganized information. And for the record, I don't think it would justify a similar page for every member of a national assembly, only for those whose sponsorship of bills is notable enough to produce non-trivial sources. Savidan 19:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per Micha Beekman Billhpike (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Political positions of Barack Obama or United States Senate career of Barack Obama. I don't think we need a list for every congressman.  I believe this list is relevant, relative to other lawmakers, because 1) Obama is a major party candidate for president and 2) his his short time in national politics is an issue been raised by his opponents.  This speaks to the Kirk Watson interview flap of a few months back.  I also think the article would be justified in the event that he wins the presidency, for historical reasons.  It would be appropriate to have similar articles listing the legislative records of Harry S. Truman or Lyndon B. Johnson.--Bridgecross (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't know who marked this for deletion, but I believe it should not only be kept, but that similar pages should be generated for all the members of the House and Senate.Westrim (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * CommentDo you mean similar lists for everyone who ever served in any legislative assembly in the world? Otherwise it seems POV. Edison (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets Lists. The information is a discriminate collection because it clearly is focused on a particular, quantifiable topic, so WP:IINFO is not violated. None of the five sections of WP:NOTDIR apply. Also, there is a significant difference between the third party opinions contained in the political positions of Barack Obama vs. an article (here a list) containing information that lets the reader come to their own conclusions about Obama's political positions. Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul (AFD1, AFD2) and sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry have been around for a while without opening can of worms. "List of bills sponsored by Barack Obama in the United States Senate" can be modified using "Legislation sponsored by Ron Paul" and "Sponsorship of legislation by John Kerry" as guidelines as needed. -- Bebestbe (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - the merits of those articles are not up for discussion <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some posters argued that the Obama list would open up a can of worms (and the nominator posted "if we have a page like this for Obama, we'll need one for every significant member of a national assembly worldwide"). I posted the existing other stuff to show that no can of worms has yet been open by other similar lists. In other word, opening up a can of worms is not a reasonable basis to delete the Obama list. Here's two more I found: List of George W. Bush legislation and programs and Vladimir Putin legislation and program. -- Bebestbe (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Baseballfan I fixed your link for you.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because of the rather trivial nature of the list, because useful content can be merged elsewhere, and because it creates a bad precedent (well, Paul and Kerry too). Biruitorul Talk 19:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete wikipedia is not a directory <Baseballfan789 (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - The more that is known about Obama to the public, the better. Chris (talk) 20:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, this info is encyclopedic. Especially per the comments of Bebestbe--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - As a non-US citizen with no affiliation to any american politics, it confuses me why this list has been nominated for deletion, at least for encyclopaedic reasons. This article provides a useful list of bills sponsored by a U.S. Presidential candidate... it is not OR, and to say that this would lead to similar lists for any significant assemblyman is stupid - this is notable because this guy is a presidential nominee and serves as a representation of his politics and beliefs. -Toon05 21:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - although the introduction should probably be reworded, this is important, notable information. We should keep it, and aspire to make a limited number of similar articles (not all political leaders, but the more notable (e.g. John McCain).  Bebestbe is right in stating that it will not "open a can of worms"  However, if we do keep it, some of the verbage needs to be changed.  roc314 21:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roc314 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, WP:NOTDIR. This strikes me as highly political.   Corvus cornix  talk  21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if we delete all the political articles about politics we won't have much left. Savidan 00:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Interesting article - verifiable and significant. --Oldak Quill 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. Neutrality shouldn't be achieved by deleting the articles we have; we should create such lists for every Senator. Wikipedia is about leveling the playing field up, not down. --Oldak Quill 13:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable, useful, non-indiscriminate information. Certainly the inclusion of this article does not necessarily justify the inclusion of similar lists for every national politician anywhere (given that Obama is, at this point, not just any old senator), but even if it did, I wouldn't see a problem in that. Frankly, it could be helpful to have similar lists for people like Kong Sam Ol. Anyways there is no NPOV problem in having an article on a verifiable, neutral topic. McCain supporters and Obama detractors can create similar lists for other politicians if they feel that the existence of this one should be balanced out elsewhere. Mangostar (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bebestbe --Yablochko (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge - Delete or merge into Political positions of Barack Obama. A mere list of bills, on their own unexciting and not worthy of an article, are not all of a sudden turned into a legitimate article merely because the writer is an Obama fan.  I would prefer deletion, but if merging is a valid compromise, I'll accept it. Anthony Hit me up... 23:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Topic is notable and seems to have been covered in reliable sources. Nominator's assertion that this leads to POV problems is incorrect. The nominator meant that it led to systemic bias, there is a difference. Since when do we delete articles because no one else has created similar articles for other people? --Aujourd&#39;hui, maman est morte (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts. WillOakland (talk) 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't see how this could possibly be described as indiscriminate. Senators introduce bills; important senators introduce many of them. It's not like we're listing the people on his street or high school graduating class. Savidan 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge Reformat content, redirect article to Political positions of Barack Obama. I could see this article accidentally on purpose becoming a coatrack, and it would be better to centralize things on one reasonably sized article. Are there any third party sources to demonstrate the notability of the fact that he supported Bill X? Do we really need this list, or can we show Obama's values in other ways?-- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, given the number of papers, magazines, and other print media that cover the United States Senate - Congressional Quarterly, The Hill, and The National Journal come to mind - every bill introduced probably meets our general notability criteria. I agree with the coatrack problem except that I believe that this page will end up highly watched. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comment - I think merging has been proposed multiple times into the already lengthy "Political positions of ... " article. Obviously, I think this would result either in the loss of sourced content or in making that (already substantial) article too large. A list of bills seems like a good form of daughter article for such articles. It would also remedy the concern expressed by many deleters that too many of these articles will be created: first, a political positions article should be filled, then one of these can be created if there is too much sourced content for that article. Savidan 00:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I created this list because the Wikipedia format offers me to integrate more information than is available at thomas.loc.gov or Govtrack.us.  Specifically, I have used the format to provide links to third-party articles referencing some of the legislation (the Notes column), although I have more to do there.  I've created Wikilinks to various entities mentioned in the bill names or descriptions, such as Juneteenth and 2-Methyl-4-chlorophenoxyacetic acid, and to a few articles such as the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act.  While many of the lesser-known bills are represented by red links, some, such as the Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act, have generated substantial discussion in the media and in scientific literature and should be represented by their own articles, and this list serves as an outline with starter references.


 * The article is clearly appropriate according to the policies listed. It is not an "indiscriminate collection of information", because the exact number of bills listed matches a source cited and several sites interested in government will yield precisely this list of bills sponsored by Obama.  It is not a list with non-notable entries, because most of the bills I've looked up so far have at least some discussion in third party sources, though sometimes they are quite obscure.  It is not a "coatrack" or a "can of worms" because there is fairly little discretionary content, and where substantial content exists about a particular bill an article can be started on that one piece of legislation.


 * The list format serves a particularly useful role because it allows readers to sort by title, allowing them to find multiple introductions of a particular bill. It also allows searching by bill number for specific queries.


 * It is true that this can (and should) be done for other senators. However, Obama is clearly  of special interest at this point in time.  It is conceivable that at some point this list could be superseded by a well-written page that customizes a comparable list for any Senator from all sessions of Congress, but it is my impression that such a page would not work quickly or efficiently without fundamental revisions in the core software.  There really is little waste of space in creating separate lists of bills sponsored or amendments proposed by each senator, since each has only one sponsor.


 * A merge into the political positions of Barack Obama is undesirable, because the full table would overwhelm that article, and anything less would involve an arbitrary selection of certain bills as more important than others. Also, there is arguably a distinction between political positions and concrete legislative actions.  It was actually the limitation of the Barack Obama article, and the unavoidable bias that occurs when only a few bills are selected for discussion, that led me to create this table. Mike Serfas (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Interesting list. Passes WP:N and WP:V. Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd have said to merge into the positions article, but as Mr. Serfas said, it would be a nightmare due to the combined length. It's relevant information, especially with his position as a presidential contender for a major party. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. Also this would tend to make notable lists of bills sponsored by every person who ever served in any national assembly in the world. Edison (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. csloat (talk) 09:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What is Wikipedia for? If Wikipedia can cover the 2005 Texas Longhorn football team and the December to Dismember (2006) pay-per-view event, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner and Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (all of which are current featured articles), then why should it be taboo to have an article about each and every major piece of legislation introduced in one of the world's better known legislatures?  And in turn, to have lists of such legislation crediting them to their primary sponsors?


 * We all know what Moore's Law is. Year by year, the number of articles that Wikipedia can hold using a fixed amount of money and serve to the general public in a fixed period of time will grow in an exponential manner.  What will these new articles be about?  Should we dream only that they should cover each wrestling pay per view event, but not dare to touch on issues of politics?


 * I have another idea. I think that as Wikipedia's reach grows, that the time will come when each new bill, on the day of its introduction if not sooner, will receive its own Wikipedia entry linking it to its founder and news coverage of the circumstances leading to its introduction.  I think that there will be a "U.S. Senate" Wikiportal where people will see each of these articles as a "Did you know?" fact for the day, among other relevant entries.  I think that each bill will be linked into a list of bills sponsored by so-and-so, and summarized as appropriate in a shorter summary of the political positions of so-and-so.  I think that the vast majority of these articles will be started by supporters who do not deny their partisan opinions, but that they will be adorned with links to other sourced criticism in a timely fashion by those on the other side.  I think that most of the time this process can happen in a relatively civil manner overseen by the neutral bloc of editors and admins primarily devoted to Wikipedia policy.  And I think that the result of this process will be that more Americans (in this case) will read these bills, will ask relevant (if pointed) questions in the discussion pages, will rephrase these questions with less restraint on political talk forums in the external links, and will in this manner yield genuine, informed feedback on the bills.  By causing the voters to yield more relevant, better timed, better thought out feedback directly on legislation, Wikipedia will not only assist in the formation of better bills, but will generally put pressure on Washington insiders to treat their constituents with more respect than they have been accustomed to.


 * I don't deny that the full implementation of this idea requires hundreds of lists and tens of thousands of articles just to cover the United States alone. But Wikipedia will be adding millions of new articles in coming years, and these should be among them.  I also don't deny that the creation of an article is a method by which people can express a personal bias in favor of its subject matter.  But that is true for articles about video games and rugby teams as much as it is about politics.  When so many people have such strong opinions, Wikipedia will not be free of electioneering, but we can choose what kind of electioneering we want: do we want the kind where individuals express their sympathies by writing up new articles with sourced, accurate information, or the kind where individuals cluster at AfD discussions and try to get one another's information deleted? Mike Serfas (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and what would be this information's parent article is too long for merger. Shem(talk) 16:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that as many of these pages as possible should be made an linked to as many elected officials as possibly. There is never a downside to more information, as long as it is accurate and presented appropriately.Απόλλων 11:00, 24 June 2008 (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.