Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable bill: never got out of committee, no significant independent RS coverage, article created by the communications director for the organization backing the bill. (Those looking for sources should be careful not to mix up a Colorado state-level amendment, or other proposed state amendments, with this one; additionally, in spite of the lede in this article, it's not significant coverage of the amendment.) Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. The nom has a point about the advocacy tone of the current article, but in addition to the AP story already cited in the article, I do find more independent coverage, here for example: Enough here to make me think there is valid and worthwhile content here.  I would not necessarily oppose merging this into a broader article, if one exists, but I haven't identified a likely target yet.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I found those, but I don't really consider them significant for purposes of establishing notability - the CBS one is nice and long but pretty much none of it is about the proposed amendment, as opposed to the treaty and general opposition to it, and the Indy source isn't really coverage of the amendment at all. The other sources are too short (I'm also iffy about using Christian Post to attest notability - to be notable, a subject should have received coverage in mainstream sources, not only in far-right papers when it is itself a far-right subject). Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every session of Congress sees at least a handful of proposed Constitutional amendments that, like this one, go less than nowhere.  Depending on the political clime of the day and how bored the news services are, sometimes people write about them.  Much like Oakland, there's no there there.  The bar for inclusion for these political-stunt amendments is (or ought be) a good bit higher than this one meets. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep*. I am the editor in question, so you know up front. I do not try to hide my affiliation with ParentalRights.org and I welcome and have welcomed critical edits to the article in order to counter my own bias. I want the article to meet Wiki's goals. The article in its current state has been significantly edited from my original posting, particularly thanks to Npdoty and TiC. I would also discourage removal based on the fact that the resolution did not make it out of committee, because the language has already been introduced again in the current Congress (HJR 3), and will be moved forward in coming months. Additionally, state-level resolutions for its passage have been passed in the last 3 months in Idaho, Montana, and Florida, and in the Texas House. These further demonstrate that it is not a dead issue. If the article is deleted, it should be if other reasons merit it; that reason is premature in my opinion. Michael Ramey 21:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The state-level thing suggests at most that the article on the UN Convention might deserve a mention on US legislative response [Ed. Fancy that, there's a whole article on the US and the Convention!]; whatever notability the state-level laws may have does not reflect on the notability of the proposed federal law, which lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * These state resolutions (none of these at the state or federal level are "bills" or "proposed laws") all call on the U.S. Congress to propose to the States for ratification the Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While some mention the Convention, some do not. They all call for this Amendment. Since this Amendment has inspired a movement that is growing and not shrinking, I aver that the Wiki community is enriched by its mention so long as the possibility of its passage exists. Should it become the Twenty-eighth Amendment, the presence of this article from early in the process will be of benefit to Wiki goals. I am also compelled to point out that (1) "Wiki encourages COI editors" as long as their work is in keeping with Wiki goals, which I adamantly strive to achieve and (2) User:Roscelese reveals in her profile a strong personal/political motivation to oppose pro-family issues such as the one described in this article. Wiki is not intended to be a political battleground, either for promoting or opposing causes. This article is open to edits so that it will be neutral presentation, not a political promotion. But this removal attempt appears to be fueled by political interests. Michael Ramey 15:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd love to hear how I'm anti-family, but the discussion of the article on this thing that you're paid to promote is not the right place. Find sources that satisfy WP:GNG - not press releases, not other self-published opinion pieces from far-right political groups. This is how you indicate notability, not by claiming some movement whose existence is not supported by secondary sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)::::I apologize for the anti-family tag; I misread your profile; I admit my error. Michael Ramey 19:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable or not depends on coverage in press. It is sufficiently notable per quoted sources.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The quotes sources are...not press. One only has to look at them to notice this. Only the CBS source is, and as I pointed out, that's not significant coverage that satisfies GNG. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Notability requires verifiable evidence;" Wiki guidelines do not require that sources be "press." In the case of this proposed amendment and the resolutions supporting it, the records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures are better sources than a news article. Major media's choice not to cover an event does not mean the event did not happen or is not Wiki-worthy. Michael Ramey (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "The records of the U.S. Congress and state legislatures" do not indicate notability, they're obviously a primary source. WP requires secondary sources. The lack of any significant coverage is actually a pretty good indication that it's not Wiki-worthy. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom - no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Very many (perhaps tens of thousands) of bills and proposed amendments are sent to legislative committees to die a quiet death all the while getting political points from constituents.  We don't need legislative staffers and lobbyists on Wikipedia doing free press for such bunk for the folks back in Buncombe County. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If this amendment ever actually moves forward like a serious proposition - instead of being proposed by somebody and immediately buried in committee - then we can talk. --MelanieN (talk) 22:44, 30 May 2011 (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.