Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The School Safety And Law Enforcement Improvement Act

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is about proposed US legislation that was never enacted into law. This indicates it never even made it to a vote. Whpq (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable failed legislation. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP is not a repository of inconsequential failed law proposals. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep. By analogy to criterion 5 of Notability (books) on grounds that the Congress of the United States of America "is so historically significant that any of [its Bills] may be considered notable". I am not suggesting that that policy is directly applicable, rather that it explains my thinking on this, which may be a completely new departure. James500 (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC) Also I think that bits of this Bill might have been included in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010. James500 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well that is a novel (it had to be said) take on the notability of failed legislation. I understand you are drawing an analogy, but when discussing books, the expectation is that any of the works of an historicalyl significant author would be the subject of (academic) study and thhus have coverage in reliable sources, perhaps not immediately accessible to the average Wikipedia editor.  This is not the case with proposed US legislation. -- Whpq (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have striken my remarks. I don't know enough about proposed US legislation to argue. James500 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not the repository etc. Laws passed by Congress are likely notable, but not every single bill — back in the early 1970s, the House of Representatives originated well over ten thousand bills in a single two-year period, and the Senate a few thousand more.  There's not possibly time (on the part of reliable sources or on the part of Wikipedia editors) to cover all of them.  Nyttend (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The number of Bills is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not paper. James500 (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - In general, I do not think that the test should be whether the legislation was passed, or even received a vote. As it stands here, I think the question is what type of media coverage the bill received, and whether that is enough to justify an article (as opposed to merging it into one of the articles about the shooting it was in response to, which, if done, would not require the same level of detail). Savidan 02:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree.  I did do a cursory search prior to nomination and found nothing to indicate standalone notability or enough substance that a merge to the incident was justified.  I may have missed something as there are all sorts of proposed legislation with similar names. -- Whpq (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2011 (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.