Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. dbenbenn | talk 00:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The votes were 11 delete, 8 keep, 3 merge, 2 keep or merge.
Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act[edit]
This page describes (in great detail) a bill introduced to the U.S. Congress by Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul that would have repealed sections of the Patriot Act. Not only did the bill die without action last year, there are literally thousands and thousands of bills that get introduced during a session of Congress, about 7 percent of which actually get enacted. I'm sure the bill was a fine one, but a) it went nowhere, and b) it never had a chance to go anywhere, which to me makes this not notable and thus not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, despite the controversial nature of the Patriot Act. (There have been fistfuls of bills introduced trying to do various things to the Patriot Act, and this one is not particularly special in that group. I am a Capitol Hill reporter, so unfortunately I am all too familiar with this topic.) Katefan0 20:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. Passes the Pokemon Comparative Importance Test (PCIT). Rhobite 21:00, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Katefan0. If not already there, merge a brief summary of this bill into the USA PATRIOT Act and then Delete. older≠wiser 21:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, perhaps a single line the PA article, but I'll leave that judgement issue to whoever wants to do it. --fvw* 21:56, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
- Delete. humblefool® 00:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete until it passes. RickK 00:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Just a quick explanatory note: It will never pass. It in fact has now ceased to exist. It was introduced in the 108th Congress. It is now the 109th Congress. When Congress enters into a new congressional session, all bills are considered dead. They can be re-introduced (with new numbers), but for all intents and purposes they no longer exist. So far this has not been re-introduced, and probably won't be. Katefan0 17:15, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Add a sentence or two to the Patriot act article. --Calton 01:01, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- At least merge some of this to USA PATRIOT Act or to the article on Kucinich, but I think it is more significant than much of the above suggests. This was more a protest action and a critique of the USA PATRIOT Act than it was ever really intended to pass into law. Think of it as a political demonstration by two House members whose politics are, in most respects, quite different from one another: Kucinich on the left edge of the Democratic Party and Ron Paul a right-libertarian Republican. I'm not sure if the detailing of its provisions is the right article to have, but I'd vote keep for rewriting this as a window into the strange bedfellows that have arisen from civil libertarian opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, not notable enough yet. Megan1967 03:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep on the grounds of the PCIT. Everyking 04:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge; Agree with Jmabel. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 04:17, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep or merge. Agreed w/ Jmabel. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Would possibly be notable if it had been passed or was a significant topic of discussion in Washington. Neither appears to be the case. Capitalistroadster 07:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge to 2-3 sentences in USA PATRIOT Act and one sentence each in Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Agree with Jmabel's analysis, but unless he's prepared to do such an encyclopedic edit, we should leave it to short notes in those articles, since I also agree with Katefan0 that there were many such bills introduced. This was more notable than most, but was still an instrument of debate rather than a bill that was passed. Barno 14:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Merge per Jmabel. GRider\talk 19:47, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. It was never an Act. It was just a Bill. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It's just a Bill, yes it's only a Bill, and it was sitting there on Capitol Hill... --Calton 00:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Extreme keep. Well-known in progressive circles. If this page is deleted, I will push for its restoration. It was a notable bill. --Sesel 00:05, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Do what you have to do, but don't re-create it unilaterally, bring it up at Votes for undeletion. RickK 08:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm aware that the undeletion process is proper policy. --Sesel 18:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This is an important issue, and besides, Wikipedia should discuss all manner of proposed bills.Zantastik 07:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- So we should have an article on every bill ever submitted to every legislature? Or where do you draw the line? RickK 08:03, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Echo Rick's question. There is absolutely no good reason why we should have an encyclopedic entry for a bill that never went anywhere. Especially when we don't have entries for every bill that actually does become law. Katefan0 17:50, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Support Katefan0's analysis. --BM 16:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. BTW, that we don't yet have articles on one thing does not mean that we can't have article on another, Katefan0. James F. (talk) 12:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That's true, but misses my point, which was about orders of importance. Katefan0 16:57, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Failed congressional legislation is historical trivia, but as "Wikipedia is not paper", if somone actually bothers to write an encyclopedic entry on such minutia, I can see no harm in leaving it. It could be of potential interest to someone . -- Infrogmation 20:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The legislation proposed by a congressman is even more important than where he went to high school. Ashibaka tlk 21:08, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Members of Congress introduce/sponsor legislation ALL THE TIME. I looked it up, and Kuchinich is listed as sponsor of 19 bills and Paul of 62. Listing all of them would be pointless, and since the one we're discussing sank without a trace, why give it special prominence?
- Keep Opposition to the Patriot Act is notable. As a part of that opposition, at the federal legislative level, pushes its notability above the "literally thousands and thousands of bills that get introduced". Passage is not required for notability. Added notability comes from its sponsorship by a 2004 presidential candidate. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 23:08, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Opposition to the Patriot Act is no more notable than opposition to any other policy of the Bush administration: war in Iraq, defense policy, energy policy, Social Security privatization, tax cuts, education, you name it. Dozens of federal bills are introduced/sponsored every session by former presidential candidates: John Kerry, who actually polled above single digits, has 29 with his name on them from the 108th Congress.
- The term for keeping this article is "POV", and talk about "notability" is mere hand-waving. The bill was introduced, sank without leaving any real ripples, and is now officially dead: any "notability" is among those committed to those opposing the USA PATRIOT Act, not the world at large. This bill, is, at best, a historical footnote not deserving of a full article -- certainly not in the eye-glazing detail this one has -- and the purpose of keeping it is for consciousness-raising (or, to be blunt, propaganda) purposes. --Calton 01:46, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with you, Keith. The fact that this bill was introduced in opposition to the Patriot Act does not inherently make it notable. I also disagree that it gains added notability because it was introduced by Kucinich. He was a presidential candidate, but only barely -- like this bill, his candidacy was futile from the start. Does this also mean that failed Democratic contender Carol Moseley Braun's bills are also inherently more notable? (No.) Katefan0 20:58, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep Even if "This bill, is, at best, a historical footnote..." then what is a comprehensive encyclopaedia like this for if it is not allowed to contain what could hardly be considered an excessively long piece on a historical footnote. Its existence cannot be propaganda unless you argue that an articles existence constitutes implied notability and hence validity. So then edit the page to accurately portray its actual significance, so people can decide for themselves. I believe we should err on the side of preservation not deletion, even if the notability is questionable -- Fuzz 02:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I am in not the author or supporter of the article, and have not previously voted. Im sure the above is done as a matter of course in case of attempts to rig votes etc., so Im just clearing that up - Fuzz 02:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. The bill doesn't exist, never had a chance to exist and was introduced with the knowledge that it would never have a chance. It had no significance beyond a publicity stunt. SWAdair | Talk 11:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.