Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opt Out of Iraq War Act


 * 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 Delete. Hut 8.5 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Opt Out of Iraq War Act

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per the reference mentioned on Talk:Opt Out of Iraq War Act 10,000 bills are introduced into each session of Congress. Only 400 become law. How is this bill more notable than the 9,600 that meet a similar fate? Not a notable bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak delete - Rich, you know my thoughts on the genesis of these articles and there's no point re-hashing all that. But I will say that while your statistics about such legislation may well be correct, the standard we need to use is WP:GNG and so the normal checks for sources need to be done. My impression is that while it has received some coverage, it probably hasn't received enough to pass GNG:
 * This from The Villager.
 * This needs a HighBeam account to work out if there is more text available.
 * This from the Gotham Gazette.
 * On balance, at the moment I think it should be deleted but I'm conscious of the fact that if I can find the above with a simple Google search, access to other sources might turn up a few additional items. Stalwart 111  04:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By OP – We have the announcement of the bills' introduction, but then what happened? Nothing. Per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." Clearly this bill had no enduring notability. (PS: I have a HighBeam account. Except for the full text of the bill, nothing more than the US Fed News Service report on the introduction of the bill was provided.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and I raise you WP:NOTTEMP. Ha ha. But seriously, if there's nothing more attached to the HighBeam article then I can't see that this could possibly pass WP:GNG. Failed proposals or rejected ideas can still be notable, but I don't think this is, was or will be. On the basis of your HighBeam analysis, I've thus amended my "vote". Stalwart 111  05:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability is unlikely; I can't find any evidence of it, but my google-fu is questionable, anyway.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this meets the general notability guidelines. The coverage seems insignificant. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge & Redirect; using my google-fu my search for significant coverage of the subject revealed one news organization source where the subject is the primary subject of the content and received significant coverage. However the source is from a small published news organization called Queens Courier. Other editors have posted similar articles from other non-major news organizations. Outside of news organizations there are few to nil non-primary reliable sources which mention the subject. That being said, it is my opinion that the quality of sources do not indicate that the subject is notable per WP:GNG. Perhaps the verified content of this article can be summarized, and merged into the article Criticism of the Iraq War, and a redirect left in its place. Otherwise, the article, IMHO, should be deleted.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Moreover, outside of its introduction, there is very little to no coverage of the proposed legislation, therefore, since notability is not temporary unless consensus is for merger and redirection, deletion is a valid option.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. & WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Clearly fails WP:GNG--JayJasper (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This is just additional harassment from Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO... Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786. The information is factual and is obviously notable to the congresspeople who sponsored and co-sponsored it.  Right now the argument is that newspaper editors are somehow more qualified than congresspeople when it comes to determining notability.  Regarding the slippery slope argument... I think it's pretty absurd to worry about editors making the effort to create an entry for every 10,000 bills introduced.  And if they did...so what?  Why not have a record of all the laws that congresspeople have tried to pass?  How is that unencyclopedic?  Is the concern that 10,000 entries is going to take up a lot of space on the hard drive?  If so, anybody with even the slightest knowledge of space constraints would appreciate how absurd such a concern is.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. --Xerographica (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2013 (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.