Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senate bill 0099


 * 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. BJ Talk 20:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Senate bill 0099

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

This is a POV fork of Political positions of Barack Obama and is being used as a dumping ground for criticism, giving undue weight to campaign attacks. This is not a standard legislative article (and very few such articles exist for bills at the state level which were never passed). Rather, this article is almost entirely about Obama, whose only connection to the bill is that he supported it several years ago when he was in the state senate. Loonymonkey (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Although un-passed senate bills are rarely given such focus, this particular bill is important due to the controversy that it has sparked. The article does not sling mud or call names. It simply quotes large sections from the Bill itself, all of which are factual, and discusses the controversy over the McCain campaign ad. This article is fully referenced in the footnotes, and is an excellent reference point for anyone wanting to find out the facts behind the controversy and the full text of the bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)  — Jbd2956 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Senate bill 0099 gained national attention due to Senator Obama's presidential run. How does that true statement warrant censorship of the bill? A healthy democracy requires freedom of information, no matter who wants it suppressed. This article includes facts and contributes to the national dialogue on public education reform. It should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.205.154 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — 75.81.205.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 *  Weak delete Does anyone anywhere care about this proposed bill except in the context of Sen Obama's candidacy? If Individual's can't inherit notability by association, then entities (such as this bill) shouldn't be inheriting notability from people either. Oh, and it's not the purpose of WP to provide a platform for "freedom of information". Not all information is encyclopedic. MadScot (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * delete This non-notable bill has become a WP:COATRACK and should be deleted. Edison (talk) 04:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is NOT a WP:COATRACK. It contains no insulting comments or biased remarks. It simply contains facts about the bill in question and the responses of the campaigns and media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.218 (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC) — 130.209.74.218 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Response sure it is. There's three or four lines of "history of the bill" - which contains next to no useful information about that, in fact - if I wanted to know why this bill had been tabled, what the context was, previous policy, or anything else, I'm out of luck. But there is then 4 paras on "Controversy" which starts "Republican presidential candidate John McCain..." which is almost textbook COATRACKING, and then just for good measure we have 4 more paras titled "Barack Obama's Response". If you stripped out the campaign stuff, there'd be nothing useful, and certainly nothing Notable, left. This article isn't "senate bill 0099", it's "political statments by McCain and Obama triggerred by bill 0099". On which basis I remove the "weak" from my earlier position.MadScot (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable attempt at state legislation. Even if the current article wasn't POV and WP:COATRACKy the article still wouldn't belong because of the notability and verifiability criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the article is nothing more than quotations from the bill itself. The information about the bill includes information that is relevant to the issue at hand. Although it does discuss the campaign ad and the response to the ad, a position is not taken on either side. The article does not blatantly support either candidate. It simply provides the facts behind the controversy, which is notable due to the impending election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.74.218 (talk • contribs) — 130.209.74.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete, a failed and unremarkable piece of legislation. Saying that it's notable due to having been voted on by people is absurd, pretty much anything that tries to pass through a legislature is going to be voted on by a notable person.  No, this is a non-notable bill, and this article is being used as a WP:COATRACK.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete non notable in its own right, and its political use doesn't add any notability either. DGG (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete, This page contains a lot of commentary about the bill without many facts, but I believe that's because an editing war results in objective facts being deleted. There is currently an editing dispute resolution under way which may get this page back to the raw material of Senate bill 0099.  This page should contain information on the legislative history of the bill, and the content of the bill - commentary of content is insufficient and usually misleading.  Buddyg04 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC) - — Buddyg04 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Snowball Delete - a completely non-notable, failed piece of State legislation that is being used as an Obama attack tool. Dubious sources, one-sided commentary, original research and synthesis all over the place. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Classic WP:COATRACK article. All of the pertinent information can (and has) go into the articles about what this article is actually about, the 2008 US Presidential campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnfnrf (talk • contribs)


 * Delete Per nomination. Article is definitely a coatrack, and is otherwise not notable. It even has WP:BLP implications. It should be deleted post-haste. -- Good Damon 23:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete, This page gives the background on the education policies of the state, as well as how the legislation sought to change those policies with referenced sources. There is a lot of referenced commentary about the bill that accompanies the actual text of the bill, which is also referenced.  Although originally only noteworthy because of its support by Barack Obama, the bill is now well-known of its own merit because of continued media coverage and interest from the American people.  The bill should be discussed in connection with Barack Obama because of the current political controversy surrounding his support of it.  The article is referenced, shows no preference for one candidate over another, and gives plently of information about the bill, much of which comes from the text of the bill itself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)  — Kylee2006 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep plenty of coverage on this bill. CENSEI (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be a pain but, where is this coverage? About the bill itself and not these guys positions or voting records, etc? Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The truth about this bill is online, and people will learn it despite the censorship on wikipedia.

The bill is online along with the Guideline for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten-12th Grade, look it up.

I'm so sick of campaign talking points feeding news cycles and guarding wiki content. Do a google search for crying out loud and find the bill yourself. It's not about "stranger danger," it includes information on six categories of "comprehensive sexuality education" with four age levels. Even the kindergarten level has information on masturbation and abortion, although watered down. Those are facts with or without Wiki displays.

IT'S SO EASY TO LOOK UP, why do Wiki posters and media outlets focus on McCain and Obama talking points instead of posting the bill for everyone to see. Raw material not commentary, jeezus this is so easy I'm sick to my stomach thinking about how lazy voters and the media have become. Buddyg04 (talk) — Buddyg04 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although, I fully agree with you on how lazy voters and the media are Wikipedia isn't the place for expressing opinions or soapboxing. We need to focus on  notable content which is  verifiable,  neutral, and not  weighty. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be "EASY TO LOOK UP," but that doesn't make it notable. It's being used as an attack article on Barack Obama, because it's an otherwise non-notable and un-passed piece of legislation. I can look up literally thousands of pieces of similar failed legislation... and seriously doubt each one merits its own encyclopedia entry. This is an encyclopedia, not the congressional record. -- Good Damon 16:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:11, 18 September 2008 (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.