Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TRANSFER Act of 2013


 * 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. Can be recreated when it becomes notable  Wifione  Message 18:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

TRANSFER Act of 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article on non-notable act that was only introduced to US House in August. Has yet to be taken up by the Senate. Reference is directly from the sponsor in the US House's official website. Also fails as TOOSOON since we don't even know if it will pass, much less what the final bill will look like. Caffeyw (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – The only outside source Google turned up for this was a mention that the Congressman was going to meet some people to discuss it.  The references on the article at present consist of A) a press release from the Congressman that introduced it, B) a page on Congress's web site documenting that it has been introduced, and C) a copy of the bill. Also, this is a bill that has not been voted on in the House or even been introduced in the Senate. If sources were already discussing a bill that still had so far to go in the process, that would be one thing, but they aren't.  Presumably many bills have been introduced that nothing ever comes of, and they don't have articles, so this would seem to be WP:TOOSOON.  Egsan Bacon (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is not TOOSOON because it is verifiable in the following independent secondary reliable sources.  There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the existence of this bill. The fact that many unratified bills don't have articles isn't a reason not to have an article-- many unratified bills should have articles. This may be one of them. Asauers (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Asauers (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Also, there is a competing bill in the Senate called, the ‘‘Technology Transfer Innovation, Invention, and Implementation Act of 2013." Asauers (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Asauers (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

 *Keep - With everyone's garage band on Wikipedia, you'd think a proposed act of congress would sail through. The bill is on AUTM. AUTM is relevant. Maybe look into it? Or don't. Asauers (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article has almost nothing by way of third party sources and fails to meet WP:GNG. Two of the sources above are from organizations reporting that one of their members gave testimony before the Committee; not independent sources.  The third is someone's blog giving their opinion.  The sources available by way of searching online also yielded much of the same, so unless there are additional sources elsewhere, the subject does not warrant a standalone article.  - Aoidh (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I've struck your duplicate keep, since you already did did so above, but garage bands wouldn't belong on Wikipedia either with no reliable third-party sources; this article isn't exempt from that. - Aoidh (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another third party source. At what point does the article move beyond "almost nothing by way of third party sources?" At what point does this become "a more thorough discussion?" Asauers (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and used "Google" to add references from the following third party organizations: Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC), Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Association of American Universities (AAU), Global University Venturing, SUNY Geneseo, and the American Institute of Physics. Asauers (talk) 00:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That link you just gave is a special interest group actively supporting the bill; in no way is that a third-party independent source by any means. The article moves beyond "almost nothing by way of third-party sources" when actual, third-party independent sources can be found.  This article still does not have that. - Aoidh (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * American Institute of Physics? Federal Laboratory Consortium? SUNY Geneseo? Columbia University? There are plenty of references. More than most articles.Asauers (talk) 02:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Simply naming entities without looking at the sources and the connection they have to the subject does nothing to support keeping the article. Again, the article needs third-party independent sources, and it doesn't have that.  The number of references the article has doesn't matter, but rather the quality and type of reference. - Aoidh (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not just "naming entities." Those sources are independent third party sources. None of the aforementioned entities proposed the bill. Some support the bill. Others merely comment. There are more than enough sources in both quality and type to support notability.Asauers (talk) 02:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your definition of "independent" isn't the same as Wikipedia's definition then, because I'm not seeing a single independent third-party source. All of the sources presented have some vested interest in the topic; they are not independent sources. - Aoidh (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I would like some other opinions here. I don't think this is at all rational.Asauers (talk) 02:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: There may be a connection between this AfD and Articles for deletion/Coroners Act of 2006. Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete all the sources are either routine coverage or produced by involved parties promoting the bill. There is no indepth analysis, no evidence of professional journalism. The best appears to be http://www.fuentek.com/blog/2013/07/worth-reading-2013-07/ which shows evidence of independent thought, but appears partisan (not that I understand US politics or lobbying, but it's unrelentingly positive about a bill full of tradeoffs, which seems odd). Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That definitely seems partisan to me. Under that piece's byline is the following about the writer: "Laura Schoppe is the founder and president of Fuentek, LLC. She served as 2011-2013 VP of Strategic Alliances for the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) and currently chairs AUTM's Global Technology Portal Committee." (Emphasis mine) This would appear to be the same AUTM that appears several times in the links provided by Asauers, including a copy of the bill on their website  and a page about their advocacy of the bill .  Ms. Schoppe is working for an organization that has a clear interest in this bill.  Nothing independent here. Egsan Bacon (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Could someone please explain why this article cannot be merged into, and redirected to, the appropriate article on whatever area of the law this bill proposes to change. This bill presumably amounts to criticism of, and opposition to, existing law. James500 (talk) 11:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be. All we'd need is relaible independent sources dicsussing what areas of law the bill would change, which have yet to be found. Not your siblings&#39; deletionist (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What the bill proposes to do is to substitute section 9(jj) of the Small Business Act (15 USC 638(jj)). We do not need another source to tell us that, because the bill says that in express words that you could not make a mistake about . James500 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Title 15 of the United States Code for now. Spin off an article on the Small Business Act later, to include one sentence to the effect that this bill proposes to substitute s 9(jj). James500 (talk) 04:12, 25 September 2013 (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.