Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Section 104(e) letter


 * 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   merge to Superfund. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Section 104(e) letter

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Declined WP:PROD. This does not seem to be a notable topic. It's a letter the EPA sends to warn someone that they might be in trouble, if I take the meaning right. The source cited in the ref section does not in fact verify the content, mentioning only the "Section 106 order" which is a different document. A link was added to a very long page from Cornell Law School that might mention this somewhere, but I am not seeing evidence of significant coverage in multiple sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with CERCLA or Superfund. The phrase "Section 104(e) letter" is meaningless without a context.  There are many federal statutes with a §104(e), and there are many warning letters issued by federal agencies every day.  I could see having an article named "CERCLA Section 104(e) letter" if there was press coverage of the subject.  Here, the article is an orphan, and the reference to Cornell's Legal Information Institute is just to the full text of the CERCLA statute, which does not count as significant coverage. Racepacket (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Do a google search for "104(e) letter". Try, e.g., .  128.59.187.129 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * comment please add this to the "law" related deletion discussions. 128.59.187.129 (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As a user arguing to keep the article, the onus is on you, not others to back up your claims of notability. Simply asking us to consult Google is not sufficient. I could use Google to prove that the house I live in exists, that does not make it automatically notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Google Books reference is to a book about CERCLA. In that context, the author has used the shorthand of "§104(e) letter", but out of the context, the phrase is meaningless.  If someone wants to canvass the literature and develop an article discussing when §104(e) letters are sent and what questions they typically ask, a decent article could be constructed.  However, absent the CERCLA  context, all of this is meaningless. Without much more, this article should be merged. Racepacket (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  I would note that anyone can do this, procedures are outlined at WP:DELSORT —Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Superfund. Such letters aren't independently notable of (and would not exist without) the Superfund law itself. If for some reason, someone expands the Superfund article to the extent that there need to be content forks to keep the main article manageable, there is a very slim chance that someone could make the case that this article would be a place to make the division, but right now, there's absolutely no reason to split this off into a separate article when the main article (already an esoteric subject) is barely more than a stub with no indication that an expert is going to spend the time to make it into a useful article. THF (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just edited the page, and it now contains three sources:  (1) The United States Code [i.e., the page from Cornell Law School]; (2) the "Superfund Glossary" published as a Congressional Research Service Report [i.e., the original source for the article]; (3) the Google Books source that I mentioned above. [Yes, I'm the IP who posted keep above, and also the individual who created the article.]  I invite you to look again at the article and see whether notability is apparent.  Incidentally, I want to acknowledge to Racepacket and Beeblebrox that my original response gives an impression of rudeness that I didn't intend.  I was just in a rush.  I shouldn't have asked you to do my work for me.  Best, - AGradman / talk / how the subject page  when I made this edit 21:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not seeing where the CRS mentions this. There is an entry on the Section 106 letter... In either event I still don't see significant coverage in sources independent from the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Without addressing your second point (which is fair), I just wanted to clarify that the CRS report entry appears as follows:


 * delete I'm not seeing this as an independent article at all. Spartaz Humbug! 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Superfund. It's a minor aspect of the implementation of that law.  Sandstein   06:51, 17 November 2010 (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.