Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988


 * 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. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. This non-notable piece of proposed legislation never became law. Further, this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. We should have detailed and in-depth coverage of American politics insofar as it's notable, and indeed we do. But we do not need a separate article for a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law, and allowing it to exist creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area that it will be difficult to police. — S Marshall  Talk / Cont  21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per S Marshall's excellent nomination. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see that the bill never making it into law makes it automatically un-notable. Nor is the fact that a topic is controversial a reason to ignore it -- indeed, these two issues seem somewhat mutually contradictory: if it is minor, who will care about biasing it beyond help, and if it is controversial and liable to attract attention, is it truly non-notable? -- Pthag (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were to create an article about a piece of legislation that never even became law from, say, China or India, it'd be gone in a New York minute. Also, I don't agree that problematic article areas are the ones that attract attention.  In my experience, the worst NPOV violations are the ones that languish in articles Wikipedians don't notice.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be so sure, if it were interesting, it should stay. "Should" being the word here -- just because somebody wouldn't immediately appreciate it is no reason to cut it. To say that this should be deleted because a similar, non-american one would be is taking a mere glance at the Western bias in wikipedia and declaring "fuck it, if nobody else is having nice things, neither are we" -- clearly counterproductive! -- Pthag (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Q: Items dealing with China and India should be dealt with in the same way as American and European items, Marshall? Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The White House's opposition to the 'Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988' is what makes this piece of legislation notable. Dynablaster (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That alone does not make a proposed act notable. Clinton alone vetoed 37 bills (meaning both the Senate and House approved them and sent them to him, this does not include bills that failed to pass because Clinton threatened to veto them). I am not sure of my opinion on whether it's notable, I am just saying that the White House opposing a proposed bill does not make a bill notable.  TJ   Spyke   22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as NN Bill (or proposed Act) per WP:NOTNEWS and also per WP:Synthesis - the direct linkage to the bill and many of the refs (in Section "Background") is just not there (not saying that it doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist within the article), Section "Passage" is redundant - the same sentence/ref from the first para is rephrased, Section "Later Significance" is pure synthesis as it stands. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above rationale. We have many bills here that are not law, but that doesn't mean that they are automatic deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick search today found it referenced in a number of other articles. Of course it was rather sparce, but I've fleshed it out now. Pthag puts it well. And as a non-USian I can confirm that it's of wide interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The nominator seems to have mistaken Wikipedia's notability policy with his or her own subjective determination of what is "notable". This article is well sourced by a significant number of 3rd party independent sources. Notability exists. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Cdogsimmons. Even "a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law" provides insights into related issues.  For example, from a lawyer's perspective, failed legislation helps us understand the motives of Congress at that time -- e.g. helping us to interpret the purposes that underly successful legislation.  Notability exists. Agradman talk/contribs 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (However, I'm a bit confused -- User:S Marshall, are you also arguing that this article is a candidate for deletion because it's a magnet for NPOV violations? Even if I agreed that this threat existed, would that be grounds for deletion?)   Agradman talk/contribs 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable and sourced. No valid reason for deletion was given by nominator. "this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia" is not a valid reason by any means.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 11 July 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.