Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci


 * 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 redirect to Antonio Meucci. Given a no consensus between delete and merge, and two different merge targets, I have redirected to Antonio Meucci without deleting, so if any editor wishes to use material from the history of this article in either of the proposed merge targets, they may go ahead and do so. Black Kite (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

United States HRes. 269 on Antonio Meucci

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article's subject fails to to meet notability guidelines for events. The event was a resolution passed by the US House oof Representatives in 2002 crediting an Italian-American inventor with contributions to the invention, and implying that Alexander Graham Bell may have used that inventor's work in his own (successfully patented) design without credit. The resolution was not approved by the Senate, and even if it had been, it would not have had the force of law. The Congress is not constitutionally empowered to make binding determinations on issues of this kind (i.e., which individual should get credit for a particular invention). The resolution was intoduced by an Italian-American representative from Staten Island, in a heavily Italian-American district, to honor Meucci, an Italian who had immigrated to Staten Island. There is no indication that the resoilution was intended to produce any effect other than minor publicity. The publicity generated did not reach large numbers of people, nor address any contemporaneous issue of importance (the legal controversy over the invention of/patent on the telephone was terminated in the 19th Century). There is no indication that the legislative actors intended that their publicity-seeking resolution could or would lead to the occurrence of some notable event, and indeed, it did not. The only effect of the resolution was to elicit a response from the Canadian Parliament (Alexander Graham Bell was Canadian), which passed a motion declaring that Bell was the sole inventor of the telephone. Like the House resolution, the Canadian motion had no practical or legal effect of any kind, other than to produce some further minor publicity. Thus, while it may be possible that acts taken for the purposes of publicity alone might conceivably be notable, that is not the case here. Thus, the article fails to meet the notability criterion WP:EFFECT. There was little coverage of the event. The event fails to meet the criterion WP:DEPTH. Coverage was limited to a short period immeidately around the event. The subject therefore fails to meet the criteria WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:PERSISTENCE. The US House of Representatives is a notable body, but not everything it does is notable. For context, the US Congress (House plus Senate) routinely passes legislation naming pieces of federal property (bridges, office buildings, etc.) after individuals whom the Congress wishes to honor. When passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President, these are pieces of legislation that have force of law in the sense that the executive branch will be required to recognize the naming of the bridge (for example) with signage, in documents concerning the property, etc. Such legislation, although extremely inconsequential, is MORE consequential than the resolution which is the subject of this article. It should be noted that much of the article is given to original interpretation/research, and to airing the views of non-independent sources such as Bell's grandson. A related article, Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell, has also been nominated for deletion for the same lack of notability of its subject. David.thompson.esq (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 17:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, this does not appear to have any significant or lasting impact. It is already covered at (and can be reasonably expanded in) History_of_the_telephone, Invention_of_the_telephone, and Invention_of_the_telephone without such undue weight and detail. Congress passes plenty of resolutions and I see no reason this one is more noteworthy and needs a massive article when it seems to be advancing a POV (e.g. heavily cited to alecbell.org) that is/can be summarized more neutrally elsewhere with the full history. Reywas92Talk 18:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge a bit of the criticism and redirect to Invention of the telephone. Basically only a symbolic gesture, the resolution doesn't merit a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Antonio Meucci. Not independently notable.  A single House resolution unless adopted by the Senate (or Senate resolution, not adopted by House) is surely not independently notable.  The same probably applies to a Canadian Parliament resolution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2020 (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.