Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA


 * 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   no consensus. Opinions are sharply divided: Those who want to keep the article see it as a useful summary-style spinoff of the main article, whereas the others think it is indiscriminate, non-notable, and/or an exercise in advocacy on the part of Wikipedia. None of these arguments can be dismissed out of hand in the light of applicable policies or guidelines, and I see no argument that would compel deletion irrespective of a lack of consensus to do so (such as serious WP:BLP or copyright violations). This means that we have no consensus to delete the article, as a result of which (per WP:DPAFD) it is kept by default.  Sandstein  18:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA

 * The original article has renamed to List of US Congresspersons who support or oppose SOPA/PIPA. Some comments may reflect the earlier version of the article before opponents were added.


 * – ( View AfD View log )

I get that many people, especially around here, are very passionate about SOPA, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox, this page has no precedent (I can't find a similar page for any other bill) and is not on an encyclopedic topic. This should be merged into the parent articles – SOPA and PIPA – or deleted. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Struck above per Funnyfarm, though I'll let this run its course. I don't think either article should exist, but that may be just me. I do hope that supporters base their arguments on Wikipedia policy, lest their 'keeps' be disqualified by the opposing admin. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, a reminder to participants: both 'keep' and 'delete' !votes should be based in policy. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Stubbleboy 22:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTPEOPLE. We have a similar article under List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act. This will be extremely relevent for people who wish to see if their congressman supports the bill. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 22:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your vote is invalid per WP:USEFUL. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actually, WP:USEFUL is an opinion essay, and is not policy whatsoever. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Liar Now, when did I said that it was a policy? It's a widely-accepted essay. One of the most cited and followed essays, too. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 03:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not lying - WP:USEFUL is an opinion essay, and cannot disqualify a user's !vote. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not invalid, but the closing administrator will probably give the !vote much less weight. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Funnyfarmofdoom. Rishi.bedi (talk) 23:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The people should have a right to know who is behind these or any laws, bills, or proposals, pages like this help people choose who they vote for, there is no bias behind it, people of America have opposing view points, this is a research tool for all whom are concerned by this law weather they support or oppose it. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 00:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * All well and good but has nothing to do with WP:Notability. I don't think anyone here's worried about bias... it's a question of notability. Moreover, there's readily found information about the sponsorship of the bill on the official congressional pages that can be easily linked (if it's not already).  Shadowjams (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I wanted to find this information in Wikipedia-- it wasn't here.   It seemed to me less "soapboxy" to put this list in a sub-article, rather than directly in the article itself-- most people don't need to read this list in the parent article.  The bills have enough support that including these names inline in the parent article would be unnecessarily long-winded.  (As an alternative, we could use a collapsed box in the parent article.)   --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually what I was thinking of doing. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:37, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "It's useful" is not a valid reason to keep something. There are lots of bills people care about, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to track which legislator supports every piece of legislation. With hundreds of bills proposed in dozens of legislatures every year, these kinds of lists are completely unsustainable, and it's a terrible idea for Wikipedia to make a singular exception to policy just because this is a hot-button issue for many Wikipedians. Wikipedia is not ballotpedia or On The Issues. Nor is it THOMAS or GovTrack, which are essentially transcribed and reformatted to form this article. -LtNOWIS (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone claims any weird "policy exception".  This is what WP:Summary Style looks like-- longer lists go into child articles to avoid cluttering main.  See lots of other articles like List of supporters of same-sex marriage in the United States & List of Opponents of Same Sex Marriage), List of supporters of the Unification Church, or even all the way back to List of opponents of slavery HectorMoffet (talk) 08:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that all of the example lists you gave were lists related to wide scale social issues, not individual pieces of legislation. We don't, tellingly, have an article listing all the Congressmen who supported for the 13th Amendment. That's just one of hundreds of more important acts. LTNOWIS's point is excellent and I think it's absolutely right about precedence. Shadowjams (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - What's SOPA? Carrite (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Modify or Rename – The article will be helpful to readers if we list both those legislators who support and oppose SOPA or PIPA. (E.g., it will be helpful if we can avoid Sea of blue listings in the articles.) --S. Rich (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion S.Rich, you caught me in a very bad blindspot. Now that you point this out, I do feel 'called' by the principles of NPOV to mention both supporters AND opponents.  It's only fair.  Going to make that change now.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per LtNOWIS -- Mikel (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps rename, per Srich32977.  Spinach Dip  07:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ed originally said "I can't find a similar page for any other bill" (emphasis added). Funnyfarm got him to redact that statement by citing... another article about SOPA. I don't think that should count as legitimizing this article, completely aside from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, because all that says is that people feel strongly enough about SOPA to create two articles naming its proponents. Morgan Wick (talk) 08:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has a tag at its top, and asks people their zip code so it can tell them who their politician is, and how to contact them about this issue. So yes, it belongs in Wikipedia.   D r e a m Focus  11:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are very different questions. Banner/advocacy on wiki shouldn't affect our policy decisions regarding WP:N, of which I don't believe you've directly addressed. Shadowjams (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Per shadowjams.  I agree we should keep, but only because that's "business as usual".  NOT because of our personal beliefs.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - I suppose lists of legislators could be appropriate for some pieces of legislation throughout history, but there are hundreds of more controversial pieces of legislation. I'm leaning towards WP:INDISCRIMINATE on this, and I fear that the recentism of it is clouding judgment about notability. Perhaps this should be put into a more distinct prose that talks about the previous supporters who withdrew and other significant supports, but not just a list of legislators. There should be an easy external link to THOMAS that will easily provide readers with the full list. Shadowjams (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This appears to meet notability for lists (See NOTESAL, and it can be demonstrated that these people have been described as a group set in at least 1 RS; eg see []. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Project-ify. I concede that such a list might be worthwhile, and that it might meet our notability guidelines. But the instant we start keeping score in the article space by highlighting in bold text which senators and reps have withdrawn support, we're inching toward advocacy. If we want to do that, then perhaps this should be moved to a subpage under WP:SOPA. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea -- and maybe Projectify on Meta, not Wikipedia. Neutron (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, but... add all listed pages to a new category: Legislators supporting SOPA/PIPA, in order to retain the information. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no chance on earth such a category would survive CfD. Imagine a category for every piece of legislation that goes through a Congress or Parliament. Resolute 14:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mm, fair point. Just plain Delete, then, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and with apologies for a silly idea. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 14:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom ,LtNOWIS, shadowjams and WP:INDISCRIMINATE .Even Former Co-Sponsors have shifted there position a supporter may change his support and opponent may support or abstain.It is current issue positions may change several times before the actual vote.Actual positions will only be known when they vote.  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:UNDUE. We don't do such lists for every, or even any, other proposed or passed laws.  And honestly, there simply is no reason to.  WP:POV concerns with such a list as well. Resolute 14:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admins -- Current event, so article is greatly in flux.   If  you decide on delete, please move a copy of this to my userspace so I can access it later.    It's good wikitexted-formateted data that will be useful later on in some article somewhere. HectorMoffet (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - no particular need for a separate article, especially since legislators' opinions can change (and several have). I wouldn't be opposed to including these lists in the SOPA and PIPA articles, though. Robofish (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - Not liking something is no reason to delete. This article is factual, verifiable, notable and useful.  Of course we will keep it. Jehochman Talk 16:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Now now, where did I say that? And where is your policy-based reason here? You know the ropes around here, Jehochman. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anybody here argue to delete because they didn't like it... if anything I supported the blackout (albeit a soft one, in retrospect I wish I'd supported the full blackout earlier) and loudly dislike SOPA/PIPA. This has nothing to do with liking it or not liking it. If anything, by making sure we focus on the PRIMARY SOPA article and/or the blackout, we make a better article. Shadowjams (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete there's no encyclopedic purpose to the list. Hot Stop UTC 17:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While I agree with this reasoning ;-), this is not necessarily a valid criteria for deletion. See WP:UNENCYC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - The page attracts huge traffic, so the article is notable and we must have it. It is also factual and verifiable. Innab (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per wp:LISTPEOPLE.  I, as is Innab, am also impressed by the suggestion through its traffic that it is notable, as measured by great reader interest in the subject.  Factual as well.  23,000 views in one day?  This is probably a good candidate for DYK -- not deletion.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Reader interest' is not a valid criteria for keeping; see WP:POPULARPAGE. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed. That's just an essay.  An essay does not determine what is "a valid criteria".  That is the purview of a policy, which is quite a different animal.  As the essay itself warns us, at the very top of its page, it is the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent ... minority viewpoints..... Essays are not Wikipedia policies."  Here is my opinion -- 23,000 views in one day suggests that the subject is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but as this is based on your opinion and not policy (notability is not determined by page views, I would expect this to be given little weight by the closing admin. 03:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It should be given as much weight as the essay -- which is also an opinion. It is, furthermore, based on WP:COMMONSENSE (also an essay/opinion), which is in turn based on Ignore all rules, an English Wikipedia policy and a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, which states:  "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."  We improve wp, in my opinion, by supplying a page to our readers that attracts -- as amply demonstrated -- enormous readership interest, and which is properly sourced and verifiable and non-sensationalist.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The SOPA/PIPA pages are so big and contain so much this should be separate. The information would get lost in the bills pages themselves and I think having separate makes the information more relevant to each.--Sallynice (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly WP:N and I am sure that individual representative's support or opposition is verifiable in sufficient WP:RSes.  In its current state the list/article looks a little "thrown together" and could use some polishing, but that's not a reason to delete it.  And of course, the content of the list is going to change over time, but that's no reason to delete anything either.  And the fact that changes will occur does not mean that the list is indiscriminate, it just means it's incomplete.  WP:INDISCRIMINATE would actually seem to argue for this article's inclusion, as the article is a "collection of information... gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner"  It will evolve, as will every article here, but there's no valid, policy based reason to delete it, IMO.  Arguments citing WP:POV or WP:UNDUE seem, to me, to be arguing the corollary of WP:OSE—if other bills don't have lists of pro/opponents, this bill shouldn't either.  But just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it shouldn't.  It just means that nobody has gotten around to creating it yet. :) Finally, merging it back into the articles on the bills themselves, would make those articles unmanageably long.  This is exactly the kind of situation where such data should be forked off to a stand-alone list article.   Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 19:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is obviously an important issue and deserves its own page. I see no reason to delete. --Politicsislife (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:VALINFO. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My vote still stands the same. There is too much information here, and it just makes sense to have its own article.--Politicsislife (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A sourced article that is a reasonable content fork of the Stop Online Piracy Act article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Being sourced does not automatically equate with notability... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:08, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you have that this is not a notable topic? If 23,000 people are viewing the page each day, that sort of speaks for itself.  You and others are being a but funny arguing that the sky isn't blue. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe I was wrong when I said "you know the ropes"? 23,000 people does not mean that we should have an article. That's determined by our policies and guidelines. "Notability" was a poor choice of words by me. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The page you linked to is an essay. I don't agree with it. People want this information.  We have sources aplenty, so we have a list.  Some of those attempting to delete it appear to be engaged in political lobbying. We have massive lists of fictional characters such as List of Pokémon (441–493).  This list includes real, notable people who have taken a position on a real, highly newsworthy controversy. Shall we keep all the Pokemoncruft, but delete this?  That seems like bending over backwards to satisfy a political objective. Jehochman Talk 13:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an advocacy group per se, and this list would certainly appear on its face to be making Wikipedia one. Collect (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * After yesterday it is quite clear the position wikipedia holds, and everyone is aware of their stance by now. As long as this articles presents both supporters and opponents, in a fair and equal way, then I see no conflict of interest. --Politicsislife (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Similar lists already exist on Wikipedia. Such as lists of political endorsements. -- Evans1982 (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Inappropriate and POV list with the likely effect of applying political pressure to those with the "wrong" position.  This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a political action committee which implicitly says "WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN!". It fails verifiability, since most of the entries lack any source at all, much less a reliable one. Further, the support or opposition is subject to change, as shown by numerous entries saying "no longer supports." BnBH (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hih BnBH-- I just want to let you know that while I want to KEEP, I share your concerns about Wikipedia articles that might scream "WRITE YOUR CONGRESSMAN".  Our articles have to be NPOV and this is an article.  We MUST be neutral.  That's why its important to include both opponents and supporters.  This article is NOT intended as advocacy.  Also, this article is NOT in response to the Wikipedia blackout-- the SOPA/PIPA/Child articles existed long before the blackout.  I really want to push back against the idea that we "mean" something by having this article.  Wikipedia articles are NPOV-- their existence is NOT an endorsement of anything at all.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 10:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Delete poorly sourced list that does not have any encyclopedic value. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are currently 50 inline citations in the article, many from reliable government sources. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – Basically an overtly politically-oriented hitlist of people who have supported (or opposed, see comment below) the two controversial bills, not to mention an overtly POV fork. Another example of blindly following WP:V and WP:RS without any editorial responsibility or common sense. --MuZemike 01:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Comment amended on 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see how this article is POV or a "politically-oriented hitlist" since it gives equal weight to supporters and opponents of the bills. The only thing wrong with it is the article title—Perhaps a Rename to Supporters and opponents of SOPA and PIPA or Opponents and supporters... if you prefer...  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 01:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Hi MuZemike-- to echo Livitup:  This article is NOT an endorsement-- it sincerely is not meant to be a political "hit list". It's not a banner, it's an article-- we all know NPOV is in force.   Readers want to know these facts and we have RS to verify the facts.  It's not a 'hit job' or a "special exception", it's business as usual.  --HectorMoffet (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Did the user who !voted delete above miss the part of the article in the section "Opponents of SOPA/PIPA"? Perhaps this is the case. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No. First off, because I supported deletion before the article was moved. In any case, support or oppose, the door swings both ways, and the same effect is achieved (mainly to reflect negatively on those politicians based on their stance on the bills). Hence, I still support deletion of this list. --MuZemike 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cautious keep. BLP policy should be enforced rigourously on anything that is less than perfectly sourced. But we don't need to delete the entire list to do that. Is the subject matter worthy of inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia? Yes. Could it reasonably be included as part of SOPA and PIPA? In my judgement, no. It is therefore a legitimate split. —WFC— 02:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep-Perhaps this could be merged instead onto one of the SOPA initiative pages, but not be a page on its own, as it is solely for taking action on this bill, not an encyclopedia topic. Captain Gamma (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is an instruction to delete three specific categories of articles. Contrary to what is said above, this list does not fall into any of them, and that policy is not applicable. James500 (talk) 05:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Please keep this page, it is concise and informative. Thank you Wikipedia! 68.16.191.60 (talk) transcribed from project talkpage by Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful, relevant, verifiable list on extremely prominent legislation. Of course it's encyclopedia. Rebecca (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * delete and rewrite with only secondary sources that make analysis of the situation. WP:INDISCRIMINATE, how does this meet the notability guideline on stand-alone lists? Where are the reliable sources making lists of specific legislators supporting or opposing SOPA and treating them as a group? Take for example this CNET article, treats the companies as supporting/opposing groups. But only lists one group of six senators as a group, and only because they wrote together a letter.


 * I would support keeping if all entries unsourced and not based on any secondary source were removed. I suspect we would be left with a very very short list. It would be much more encyclopedic, it would only include those supports/opposes that had significant impact in the process, and it would be more useful to understanding why the supports changed. (And it would stop looking as an non-neutral hitlist oriented to help lobbying against SOPA!) --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * comment: You make good points, Enric.  This article is young, and the sources are mostly trying to cover WP:V.   Notable secondary sources exist in, I think, all cases, and they would indeed be good to add to the article.  Thanks for the excellent observation-- it's a good one. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Point 1.) Reading through this discussion, I see the suggestion that this information is available elsewhere. A similar list is apparently available on some government website.  Here is the problem:  Though surely such a site exists, people cannot find it without wading through dozens of search result pages.  More importantly, readers need to have a way of reliably determining whether their representative changed their stance on the legislation. Point 2.)  The scale of the actions taken by notable members of the online community  is a notable historic event.  Since the impetus for the action was concern over two pieces of legislation,  it is the duty of Wikipedia to provide the citizens of the U.S. with a concise, reliable, unbiased list that they can use as a reference for influencing the future of said legislation. Point 3.) The list is not a Soap Box: Someone please indicate exactly what unbalanced content in the page would influence someone for or against the legislation.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by SortOfStillCare (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)  — SortOfStillCare (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Indeed. The legislators should be proud of their positions.  As long as we list them accurately, this information is quite useful and notable context around a historical event.  There is nothing soapboxy about objective information. Jehochman Talk 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not a sopabox, etc. 204.69.190.254 (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete or "Projectify" as UltraExactZZ suggests. This seems like advocacy to me, and Wikipedia needs to be especially careful about even the appearance of advocacy on the very few political issues on which Wikipedia has actually taken a position on.  (A position I agree with, by the way.)  Neutron (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, but if that doesn't work, turn it into a category listing. This is, in my opinion, the easiest way to see who's who and whether they support the bills or not. dogman15 (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE WP:NOTWHOSWHO WP:NOTNEWSPAPER Who does and does not support these bills is not encyclopedic. Will we maintain this 20 years in the future? Will we care? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we will care. The bill has been the subject of massive media coverage, and represents the first time a well-funded lobbying effort in the United States has been defeated by populist movement over the Internet.  It is a historical first. Will people care about all the other crazy lists on Wikipedia, such as Pokemon characters, or other pop culture cruft?  I know otherstuffexists is not an argument, but in this case it looks like editors are picking on just this one list, ignoring the standards that are applied widely to all lists on Wikipedia.Jehochman Talk 12:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really in 20 years you will care? Can you think of any issue from 20 years ago that you care who voted on it? Even if you care about the issue from 20 years ago, you might care who created it and who the big players were and the vote count, but not a full list of who voted on it. And this isn't that. This is just who supported it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not exactly 20 years ago, but I would care who was for or against the No Electronic Theft Act, Copyright Term Extension Act, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Because those passed by at least 80 percent, there is no official record of the major opponents. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we care about issues 20+ years ago...   I care about who supported the Civil Rights Act, Don't Ask Don't Tell--   and we all care about who were the Signers of the Declaration of Independence.   I don't think of knowledge as having an "expiration date". --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, we're comparing SOPA to the Civil Rights Act and the Declaration of Independence now? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:LISTPEOPLE, particularly in light of recent rename and modification (now includes both opponents & supporters). Relevant, notable, neutral & reliably sourced.--JayJasper (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep SOPA was a bill that had a big impact in countries far from the USA. The bill was important.  Being able to look up which US congressmen supported and opposed it is useful encyclopaedic material. People are interested in the key decisions.  Thinking of recent history, the decision to invade Iraq is one where people want to be able to look up who supported and opposed the key decisions.  You could argue that whether Senator X supported or opposed the bill will be in his biography - but it will not be in all biographies consistently, and in any case, the value of lists is that they draw you to articles that are relevant to your needs.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As a "hit list" []. To single out and create action toward individuals for or against a position, usually political. The issue surrounding such lists are of less importance then the possible harm they might cause, including in some cases bodily harm. A generally Wiki policy is needed to remove such lists from Wikipedia.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an unsupported assertion of bad faith. The people on the list, for or against, are on the record stating their position.  We make it easy for the casual reader to find the info.  If there is a wacko our there, they can find this same information in other places.  Wikipedia does not censor information for fear of what some crazy person might do. Jehochman Talk 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Such lists might be used in this fashion as well . Such lists might be defamatory as well taken out of context. The issue is not good faith it is possible personal harm to others. It is perhaps impossible that the intentions of such list can be insured as good faith submissions. Because the insane and politically motivated do actions of such a nature adds to my argument it does not detract from it. Questions of incitement to action might also arise from such lists. (The examples I've given is no indication of my political views on such actions.)--User:Warrior777 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect that assertion is blatantly false and you have not backed it up either. Such hyperbole you have included here does not belong in this discussion.--Politicsislife (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 *  Comment It is in my opinion it is soapbox  and reflects a point of view WP:NPOV. not in its content but its timing and possible future repercussions and that in some instance those repercussions might cause real harm to others. The examples I have provided are not hyperbole as I am confident most will agree. I suppose in such instances one must decide whom is objective and whom is not, "Politicsislife". My decision to delete the article was not based or bias by politics but concern for others. Such "hit lists" are unwise --User:Warrior777 (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Support for the bills has collapsed, and neither remains on the legislative calendars. At this point, I don't think any legislator can accurately be called a "supporter" because these political professionals know a lost cause when they see it.  The article inaccurately says in the lead that Harry Reid plans a PIPA vote on January 24 although he has withdrawn that scheduled vote.  Any new bills most certainly won't be called SOPA or PIPA.  Efforts would be better spent on accurate and scrupulously neutral coverage of future piracy bills rather than on this mess of a list.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  06:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because support has collapsed doesn't mean that the support in the run-up to the blackout or the collapse of support afterward isn't worth mentioning. See WP:Notability. On the other hand, you might be right per WP:Recentism, but that'd only support a rename to "supported or opposed". --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Editconflict.  "The article inaccurately says..." is an argument for WP:SOFIXIT, not deletion. As positions evolve, the article will evolve-- that's not a reason to delete the artice. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This list is not meant to advocate against SOPA or PIPA, it is just listed fact. Though it remains unlikely that the bill will be passed, there are still many supporters out there, as well as opponents. Given the amount of attention to the bill it is logical to include this page.--Politicsislife (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I find the article notable and useful.  CRRays Head90  | We Believe! 01:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Delete - it has no encyclopedic purpose.—GoldRingChip 01:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - for the international reaction to this bill, this list is useful. --George2001hi (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - and I am one of the editors who think that what's useful for a large number of our readers (students) should be kept. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Looks like a good example of a stand alone list. The battle between copyright and the business models based on it and the netizens who crave content unencumbered by excessive legislation will be one of the seminal battles of the decade.  Listing legislative supporters, proponents and those who have changed stances is useful.  The act of proposing deletion of a useful list seems partisan, at best.   There is no single spot where an average person can easily find it.  Finally, it looks fairly notable, it does not propose for or against the legistlation in question, and one of the votes for deletion mentioned that you could dig out the information from several websites.  Those websites would be the references.  Xalorous (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as pure advocacy. I detest SOPA and PIPA as much as anyone else here, but creating a "shame list" and attempting to pass it off as neutral encyclopaedic information doesn't just cross the line into advocacy, it drives several miles past it and sets up a campsite.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep. Many of these delete votes defy logic completely. List is not indiscriminate, not a "hit list", not unencyclopedic. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 04:30, 26 January 2012 (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.