Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oregon Senate Bill 166


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Oregon Senate Bill 166

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Queried speedy delete for "individual senate bills are not notable". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete If you look at the page history, I prodded the article with the reason "individual senate bills are not notable". The author then tagged the article A7--author requests deletion. I don't think there's an issue here? Can the author not contest a Prod by requesting deletion? The author also expresses desire for deletion here. Valfontis (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please delete it. User:Valfontis is right. I created the article, but than we had a discussion, I voted to delete it. She knows alot about the legislative bills, and this does not belong on Wikipedia. Please delete this article without a discussion. and I am sorry for being rude to you Valfontis afew days ago, it was wrong, and I am sorry for being rude to you about this, but i understand why this should be deleted, so hopefully you can forgive me sooner or later. I am the creator, and I vote it for deletion. Thanks.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   20:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a rough consensus that unenacted Bills introduced into a legislature are not inherently individually notable. There is, however, certainly no consensus that they are inherently non-notable. I could name unintroduced draft Bills that satisfy GNG easily and by a wide margin. CSD A7 is certainly not applicable because it does not apply to documents. The only creative works that can be speedily deleted for lack of importance are music albums. This is because admins are felt to be generally unable to assess the significance of other works without assistance. This Bill has received coverage. It seems to me that the correct approach may be to keep this article or redirect and merge it into a list of Oregon Bills, which will presumably satisfy LISTN. James500 (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why I initially put this up for proposed deletion instead of speedy, in case my knee-jerk reaction was wrong (many of the creator's articles have been less-than-notable). I don't believe, however, that there is such a list of Oregon Bills. (Feel free to look around Template:Oregon legislation to be sure.) It could possibly summarized in 78th Oregon Legislative Assembly, but I think this is more of a "goofy legislation" curiosity and footnote and not even worthy of mention there. (not that this is all a valid, *ahem* metric, for deletion discussions, even the Reddit thread on the bill only has 12 comments.) It is already mentioned appropriately at Metrication in the United States. By the end of the session I'm going to assume this hasn't gained any traction. Oregon's got bigger trout to fry at the moment. But I could be wrong. I see no reason not to let this AfD run its course but procedurally it's just kinda weird. P.S. The bill numbers get reused so if this stays, it needs disambiguation unless it reaches the level of Oregon Senate Bill 100 or whatever.
 * Also, I meant db-g7, obviously that's the author requests deletion one, not db-a7, sorry for the mixup. Valfontis (talk) 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you would like to see my contributions on Wikipedia, you may be free to do so.  CookieMonster755  (talk)   01:20, 8 March 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.