Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We the People Act (2nd nomination)


 * 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 List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We the People Act
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This legislation is unlikely to pass and has no inherent notability. Thousands of bills get introduced in Congress, and writing an article for all of them is impossible. Wikipedia is not GovTrack. Wandering Courier (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This bill has greater notability than most acts that pass in any given year. It would strip the federal court system of jurisdiction over a wide range of issues, effectively re-drawing the currently existing balance between the various entities of the US federal system.  Even though it's being proposed in legislative form, this bill is more like an amendment to the Constitution, and as such has notability even if it never passes (compare, for example, to the Equal Rights Amendment, whose potential impact was less than this bill).  The article has been improved since its last AfD and includes reliable sources which demonstrate notability.  Baileypalblue (talk) 22:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  12:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Not remotely notable, the bill has never been considered by the House Judiciary Committee; and has had no impact on the public debate.  The article has no printed secondary reliable sources: a passing mention on a radio show, two blogs, and a Christian right web magazine.  Merits maybe a sentence, if that, in the Ron Paul article; there is nothing meaningful in this article that is not already in jurisdiction stripping (which, by the way, is an abysmal article that needs a substantial rewrite--why are people creating all these meaningless stubs over collateral legislation with zero chance of passing when the main articles are in such poor shape?).  Baileypalblue's argument for keeping confuses "possible impact" with "notability" in contradiction to WP:CRYSTAL; the Equal Rights Amendment is notable not because of its possible impact, but because it was the subject of extensive public debate and coverage by secondary reliable sources.  The article is also factually inaccurate and has POV problems, but that's a different issue. THF (talk) 13:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. Non-notable proposed legislation that was sent to committee to die. No evidence of wider or lasting impact and little if any non-trivial WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Gene93k-- I would have said to the Ron Paul article, but Congressman Paul has apparently tilted at enough windmills that his bills get their own article. Bills that never get out of committee do not rate their own article, no matter how intriguing they might be.  At least with a merge, people can locate this ironically named piece of legislation.  Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. This bill did not become law.  It didn't even get passed by the House.  Wait, it didn't even get out of committee.  Wait, it didn't even get out of subcommittee.  Why are we even talking about this? TJRC (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2009 (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.