Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The main issue that brought this to AFD was a lack of coverage in mainstream reliable sources, and the consensus here is that those issues have been addressed to a level sufficient enough to meet the general notability requirements. Further improvements can be discussed per standard editorial processes. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  01:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Parental Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This was nominated a couple of months back and closed as no consensus, but subsequent conversation determined that it was improper for the article's creator to be involved, since he is the organization's communications director, ie. is paid to promote the subject. He and the other users who advocated keeping the article were given a week to find sources; it's been more than a week.

Non-notable bill: never got out of committee, no significant coverage in mainstream RS. Name gets a lot of hits, but most of those are about state-level amendments, and nearly all those that are actually about this bill are trivial (due either to the article being very short, or to a sentence or two of coverage in an article about something else, eg., which is about the treaty). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I've notified the article's creator of the existence of this AfD. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen him around since the last AfD, and as I said above the fact that he's paid what is probably a hefty salary to promote this amendment is problematic, but fair enough. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * comment it appears to me that there are no reliable secondary sources for this which establish notability. i would ordinarily !vote for deletion on this basis, but actually, the existence of such a thing as this amendment interests me, and it's conceivable that it belongs in wp.  on the other hand, given the history of the article it seems clear to me that there is no way that the editors involved in writing it now are going to be able to write something worthy of an encyclopedia.  it's possible that i will make up my mind about how to !vote soon, but for now, i just thought i'd try the experiment of taking out every statement which is cited to an unreliable source.  this leaves something which i wouldn't mind seeing in the encyclopedia if anyone could find any evidence whatsoever for notability.  if any of you'd like to look at it, it'll be in my sandbox at least until this closes. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Proposed laws aren't automatically notable; people propose laws all the time that never get out of committee, like this one. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 20:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ha, yeah... i was just writing the below when i got hit with an edit conflict from you writing the above. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * delete ok, nevermind.  i had no idea that this happened so often.  according to this: Measures Proposed to Amend the Constitution, there have been over 11K proposed amendments to the constitution.  this makes it clear to me that, given the lack of discussion in any kind of reliable secondary sources (apart, of course, from the mentions which Roscelese accurately characterizes as "trivial"), and given the fact that this hasn't made it out of committee in 2.5 tries, there is no way that this particular 0.000879353% 0.00879353% of the proposed constitutional amendments ought to have an article here. &mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment It is fairly well-known, in part because it's been proposed by Michael Farris and in part because of the recent large number of co-sponsors it has had, though it has yet to come close to the necessary number for ratification (110 is the highest House co-sponsors I found in my search). I'd be interested if anyone with a current database account could do a search to see what sort of coverage it's gotten in legal or educational journals.  I do know there are at least two interesting "secondary sources" on this - the state legislatures of Florida and Louisiana, which each urged Congressional passage of the amendment.  Ultimately, however, I don't know if the amendment deserves an article here or not.  The parental rights movement is unquestionably notable and some of this article's contents should at least be copied/merged into parents' rights movement and the amendment certainly deserves mention in US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  But I don't know how widely it's been discussed by experts, covered in the press, or otherwise fulfilled WP:BASIC.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From a quick search on JSTOR it looks like the non-trivial hits are talking largely or entirely about state-level amendments. The state legislature resolutions are primary sources that don't attest notability. But yes, I'd agree that the minimal coverage this has had could merit a mention in US ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, though not a complete merge. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  —Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Philosopher Let us reason together. 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Found substantial coverage in these independent sources which estabishes notability: (1) Associated Press, (2) Politico, (3) AFP, (4) Kunzman, (5) Christian Post. – Lionel (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your AFP link doesn't appear to work.  Deterence  Talk 14:15, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The AFP link worked when I clicked on it.--JayJasper (talk) 16:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Contigent upon incorporating the sources cited by Lionel.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ – Lionel (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   04:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - subject is fairly widely discussed. Don't think the bill itself will become notable, won't pass, but I'm sure it will be a topic of discussion for US AM radio for some length.  That said, only keep per JayJasper, Lionel's sources must be incorporated into article.   78.26  (talk) 04:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅– Lionel (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Even though the article passes WP:N, it is curiously narrow. Colorado Amendment 2 (from 1996) is extremely notable with dozens of sources, and crucial to the history of the movement. If the article makes it out of AfD I recommend expanding the scope to include greater coverage of state amendments. If the article doesn't make it out of AfD I recommend expanding the scope to include greater coverage of state amendments, by incubating it at WikiProject Conservatism. – Lionel (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources provided above by Lionel appear to satisfy the WP notability guidelines. --Noleander (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep – There are many reliable sources available, they just need to be incorporated into the article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per Lionel, they have been incorporated into the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:24, 4 September 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.