Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 (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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 20:45, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nom: This article is WP:NOTNEWS as Wikipedia is not a listing of brief reporting on or reference to, as in this example, US legislation proposed and failing to pass and become law, and more importantly with little/no further importance. The events of this bill are no more than it was proposed based on a shaky claim by a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer and failed to pass in Congress, and may be stepping into being WP:INDISCRIMINATE information. Notability is not established, especially with the synthesis/OR recently fixed. A related bill later that month in Sept 1988 was about or slightly less notable, being in the same context, and likewise died in Congress after passing in the House with no further significance, and rightfully no Wikipedia article exists for it. Please note that sourcing existing on a subject does not automatically comprise notability or warranting a Wiki article. Depth, effects, and other criteria are critically important. Several sentences, perhaps with a quote or two, is the typical "solid" coverage of this bill ever since. An uncommonly "comprehensive" source I added on the article goes a bit beyond this, but still only notes it as passing in the Senate (before going to the House, where it would die) and the lack of medical evidence to support the claim, along with additional commentary and tangential details. Interestingly, the source doesn't call the bill by name. Sparing several extraneous details, the extent of this bill's notability and significance is already covered on the Peter Galbraith wiki too so there is redundancy.

(Extra info) Previous AfD and observations: This article was previously put up for deletion on July 6, 2009, which in the less than 3 hours between the AfD template being placed on the article and the AfD page creation, another editor and would-be voter in the AfD page made a significant (assuming good faith) SYNTH edit, followed by more edits, on the article to make the topic appear far more significant and fleshed out than reality. Likely out of the rush to save the article, ignorance on the topic, and perhaps laxer rules on OR back then, the edit added a lede, "Background", and "Later significance" sections with sources and OR that did not speak on or relate to the bill, even attempting to mistakenly tie it into the 2003 Iraq invasion. This appears to have misled the voting as a result, with several "Keep" votes referencing the just-added SYNTH notability and sourcing or were confused about notability criteria, and one justifying it on the basis of future potential for notability (13 years later, and still not realized) which is not what notability is. One of the "Delete" votes called out the SYNTH explicitly, which may have been missed by others in deliberating. I have since fixed the SYNTH in this article, making for a visibly different article than was discussed in the first AfD. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Legislation gets proposed all the time and defeated all the time. This particular piece of legislation has had no further media coverage since it was defeated and even the ones from the time are limited. Not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Iraq,  and United States of America. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 23:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete since the subject appears to have received very little coverage since it failed to pass. Perhaps some of the details in the article could be merged to Peter Galbraith, but as it is there is not really enough information to justify an article.Chagropango (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2022 (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.