Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Program Authority


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Program Authority

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

no sources; orphaned; non-notable  —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 11:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This nomination appears flawed to me. "No sources"—I see 76,000 google hits.  "Orphaned"—not grounds for deletion.  That leaves "non-notable".  What steps has the nominator taken to comply with WP:BEFORE?— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.158.212 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No substantial coverage from reliable sources. Possibly a dicdef, but definition not clear from article so a straight delete okay with me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Presently unsourced, but I see clear potential for an article. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * on what basis would you create an article without violating WP:OR? Do you have some reliable source you haven't told us about? —Chris Capoccia  T&#8260;C 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Asked for help User_talk:THF - Power.corrupts (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation. Meh. I don't really know what one would say beyond a dictionary definition (and the dictionary definition in the article as it currently stands is far from precise; the term arises far more often in terms of whether control over funding should be in block grants to states, e.g., this passing mention). It's an orphan, so it's not like deleting this article wouldn't be instantly cauterizing.  Perhaps someone could write a real article about this that wouldn't be better placed in whatever article we have about the federal budgeting process, and if WP:HEY happens now or later, I'll change my !vote, but I don't see the potential others are mentioning.  If it sticks, the article should be moved to Program authority. THF (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  —THF (talk) 20:38, 25 March 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.