Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Child Left Inside Act of 2009


 * 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the talk page. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No Child Left Inside Act of 2009

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

a bill alone is not itself notable Cynof  G  avuf 10:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to No Child Left Behind Act. Xqe (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Proposed legislation can be notable. I added references to indicate to put this proposed legislation into context. A similar measure was passed by the United States House of Representatives about a year ago, but did not become law. Environmental education is a separate matter from the No Child Left Behind Act, although this bill has a similar name. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Proposed legislation can be notable or it cannot be notable. Which one is it? This bill is not a wide interest. This only reflects students. Everyone else really doesn't care. Xqe (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability doesn't require "wide interest", it just requires appropriate sources. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Education in the United States or a similar article, this isn't notable enough to stand up on its own. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 16:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep  bill alone is not necessarily notable. Some can be, if they have received enough discussion, and this is one of them. Proposed, or even failed, legislation can be of great historical interest and should be covered in an encyclopedia if significant.    DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC) (FWIW, I was asked to have a look at this, but I would have seen it in any case.)    DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every piece of proposed legislation gets significant coverage in reliable sources, but this one already has. WP:CRYSTAL is not relevant here; the article is not predicting that the legislation will be proposed, nor is it predicting that the bill will pass.  The only question is notability, and the four sources presently in the article demonstrate this.--otherlleft 19:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources are sufficient to meet WP:N. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge per YellowFives below - no solid substantial evidence of actual notability. A cute name and a letter in the New York Times do not constitute notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about the WBAL Radio and Mother Nature Network sources? -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * MNN is okay, if a smidgen specialized; but local talk shows don't qualify as significant coverage, in my book. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Article makes no claim of notability for this bill. For a unpassed bill to be notable, we would need to see a great deal more debate (as far as I can tell, there is none). Present sources in the article are about all there is, and they are not enough. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How much would be enough? -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A source or two that says that this proposed bill has generated some controversy or journalistic or scholarly analysis. Take the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 as an example. It has a real history, including prior opposition on the Senate floor, the support of candidate Obama and then being the first act signed by Barack Obama (on January 29). Abductive  (reasoning) 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just added some sourced coverage of the controversy, including a quote from an analyst. It's still not as good as the Fair Pay Act article, but I think we've got a decent starting point. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is proposed legislation that hasn't even crossed the president's desk. There is NOTHING notable about this bill other than the reporting that it exists. Cynof  G  avuf 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, for now, into a new article No Child Left Inside (movement)? The states of Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, at a minimum, have endorsed the movement with state-level initiatives using the exact phrase "No Child Left Inside"., , , , . Since I may not get around to creating that article soon, could someone save it somewhere so I can use it later? Novickas (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a draft rewrite of the article as a movement . With more refs. But wait, there's more. Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer , the US Geological Survey . Novickas (talk) 00:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge as Novickas' suggestion. The article at User:Novickas/Sandbox is pretty good, and shows notability beyond this one piece of legislation. It's much more likely to pass any future AFD. So move that into article space and make this a redirect. ~YellowFives 17:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. -- Explodicle (T/C) 16:12, 11 November 2009 (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.