Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (no consensus). --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Policy Act of 2005 Vote

This article is little more than a text dump of part of the vote on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which can easily be accessed by clicking on these links: House; Senate. This page was created because I objected to the author's insistence on having the names of certain lawmakers and how they voted on the bill inside the Energy Policy Act of 2005 article instead of having simple links to the vote tallies, which take up much less space in what is sure to be a lengthy treatise on energy policy. I had suggested maybe even moving something like this to Wikisource, but his response was to create this page. I'm not suggesting bad faith necessarily, as I don't recognize this person and I think he's new -- but regardless of motivations, I think the page should not be retained on Wikipedia itself as the information, which is essentially raw data, is easily accessible through a link. · Katefan0^(scribble) 22:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is this page nonencyclopedic, it's not even a complete listing. Links to vote tallies in the main article are more than enough Soltak 23:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The first link suggested for the vote in the house is helpful. What it would be helpful would be some information on which states the Representatives are from. For example, how many voted for the bill (or against) from Texas? or California? The data is not very useful without some analysis. The link to the Senate does not work at all. I pointed this out to Katefan0 on the talk page for the main article. The page she is referring is also without analysis and it takes a while to discover the voting patterns of the senators. Wikisource does not seem to currently include records of votes on bills. Even so, without anaylsis, the data is unnecessarily time consuming for each individual to repeat analysis that one person can provide (and others can edit). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 Votearticle is not complete as to the House would take more time to analyse. It does not include Senate Yes voters, because it is obvious that all those who did not vote in the minority voted in the majority. The purpose of this page is to reveal the whole truth regarding the senate vote, whether an individual is for the Act or opposed to it. I would like to hear Katefan0 explain the harm to the users of the wikipedia (or the wikipedia itself) caused by having additional information in this type of an addendum article. I personally do not understand her concern. In addition, since the original article is short, it seems like this information should be added back into the original article. I am not convinced that this Energy Policy Act of 2005 article will be a lengthy treatise anytime soon. Americanus 02:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with including some small analysis inside the main article itself. There's no need to have a lengthy text dump of only part of a vote in a completely separate article. · Katefan0^(scribble) 03:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - give it a chance. It's just minutes old & does no harm. Renata3 02:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Energy Policy Act of 2005 unless the vote itself is somehow particularly noteworthy. --Alan Au 07:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - apparently a purely political document, especially after two senators' comments were added 07:00 10 August 2005 UTC. Simesa 11:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect is not needed. ral315 14:40, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Are we going to have an analysis of every vote the Senate has taken in 200+ years? No? We're not? Then why start with this? If someone wants to move some of the info back into the main article, fine. But this is still a delete vote. -R. fiend 15:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

  Comment - if something is done once it does not mean that that something must be repeated everywhere. If I create article about some notable appellate course case, it does not mean that I will create pages for every case ever disputed in court. This bill is new, controversial, and notable. That's why it has this page. Not because every bill should have such pages. Renata3 12:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, it was created as a way to avoid compromising with me on my objections to its inclusion in the main article. It didn't exactly happen organically. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:39, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Cuncurring with R. fiend's point. Dottore So 20:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)Dottoreso
• Keep The preminent use of free speach is to keep track of such votes. It's important, and it is historic. The only reason to delete would be if interest was so low that innacurate information would be persisted. Redirect is tolerable except for the length issue. Benjamin Gatti 21:15, 11 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.