Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 06:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] American Sovereignty Restoration Act

American Sovereignty Restoration Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Article is about a bill that continues to die in committee every time it is proposed. Coverage in the media seems to be more about Ron Paul or bashing the UN, than on the actual bill, in addition many articles seem to be letters to the editor. Article should be restored (and an article concerning the downfall of the UN written) should the bill pass. Burzmali (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Note to closing admin: If consensus is to delete, please userfy the article at a subpage of my userspace with the same title. Although Wikipedia isn't working on a 5 day deadline, this article has hundreds of potential sources to be used, and not all of the them are presented. Celarnor Talk to me 16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
This doesn't mention the bill in its synopsis
is doesn't mention the bill in its synopsis
a isn't independent
fairly isn't independent as the author is a vocal RP supporter
major has a trivial mention
piece is a letter to the editor
of mentions the bill in the first paragraph, but chooses to attack the UN instead of discussing the bill
legislation is just ... wow.
In the end, there is a lot of puffing by people who want to get out of the UN, so maybe a merge is in order, but is earning mention in every anti-UN screed written between 2001 and 2003 enough to satisfy WP:N? Burzmali (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read the full text, not just the synopsis. Celarnor Talk to me 16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

*Keep. the article needs to be sourced up to show notability, but simply because a law doesn't pass doesn't make it non-notable. It gets enough attention, even if it is an exercise in futility. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

1) was a proposed Amendment not a bill
2) made it to a vote and didn't die in committee
3) had a snowball's chance of causing some impact on something other an a politician's ability to fund raise. Burzmali (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Non-admin closed by Dustihowe as speedy keep ("Note: To delete an article because of it being shot down in congress then to restore it if/when it gets passed is not a valid reason to bring an article to AFD") 19:03, 9 April 2008. Per WP:ANI#Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD filed by Burzmali, reopened by ChrisO 00:54, 10 April 2008. Discussion continues below.

      • My point is that it's a law that didn't pass. Your argument here is that because this law hasn't passed, it's not notable. I'm providing a counter-example. I think your argument is flawed...if you truly felt this bill were non-notable, it wouldn't matter if it were passed or not. Not every law passed is notable, and not every law not passed is not notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, it was an amendment that got close to passing. This is a bill that will lkely never even be discussed in committee. My point is that this bill is non-notable as a proposed piece of legislation. If, by some divine miracle, it were to pass, it would be massively notable. It's like an article about a high school kid who wants to be the next Nolan Ryan, he isn't notable now, but if he does become the next Nolan Ryan, the article should be recreated. Burzmali (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:RS: it has not received serious coverage from independent, reliable sources. (Of the sources provided, only one of them could be called significant coverage, and WorldNetDaily is arguably not reliable.) As the nominator says, not all bills are notable. There's nothing worth keeping in this article that isn't in United States withdrawal from the United Nations; it should be deleted and merged there. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, there's already a relevant article? Make my vote a Merge then. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no significant news coverage. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP You can't have your cake and eat it too!!! (for those who don't understand this, you cannot delete an article, then restore it if the bill eventually survives. The bill is a part of history and should be kept here on Wikipedia. Dustitalk to me 12:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, more later. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC) There are NINETY-ONE Google News articles about this. I don't know when I've had so much material to build from in an AFD. It will take all five days just to go through all those (there are some repetitions and letters to the editor, e.g., but also some decent criticism of the ASRA) and to deal with all the other stuff Burzmali wants deleted. So I really need add nothing more here. But I probably will. Had considered merge based on the viability of the proposed merge article, given what I knew prior to the Google News list, but with all that stands to be added, it would be undue weight at that article. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • John, this isn't a contest, I don't win a toaster if I get 10 articles of Paulcruft deleted. My reading of WP:N suggests that the bar is set fairly high for articles about failed (or failing) legislation. I glanced through the top two pages of those google news hits and as I listed above, they tend to be anti-UN or anti-government screeds that cite this bill as an example. 91 google news hits isn't too impressive considering the "campaign" waged by Ron Paul supporters to get anyone to care about this bill. Looking at this bill's compatriots at Category:United States proposed federal legislation, it seems like the whole category could use bit of clean up. Burzmali (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Re winning a toaster, consult Burzmali's recent edit history. Re the bar, WP:N does not mention legislation. Re the campaigners, they are not only Paul supporters (and certainly not only "Paul 2008" supporters; the bill is a decade old). Re the campaign, if it is more significant than 91 news hits would indicate, it's even more notable. Re WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to clean up. JJB 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Could I also recommend that John (and anyone else who wants to comment on this article) should review WP:SOURCES for what constitutes an acceptable source. Fringe sources shouldn't be taken into consideration. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Fringe sources should not be considered as sources for contentious material, but what we're talking about is several other classes: media and advocacy orgs that favor the bill can be cited for the noncontentious fact that they favor it; trustworthy local papers can be cited as finding the letters to the editor publishable; and sources with brief mentions can be cited if there is enough to establish notability. Here's my list:
  • Independently notable as first (if not only) legislative expression of a notable POV, United States withdrawal from the United Nations.
  • 2400 Google hits, 91 news hits, 10 book hits, and plenty more when pay sources are added.
  • Advocacy by John Birch Society, Sovereignty International, Liberty Committee, WorldNetDaily, Cybercast News Service, NewsMax, and more, often independently covered.
  • Significant independent coverage from reliable sources National Review, Victoria, Texas, Advocate, Yale Law Journal, a U.S.-Canada policy text, and more.
  • One letter to the editor might be ignored, but dozens of grassroots letters each independently esteemed worthy for publication combine into another mark of notability. I also found one letter against the Act (Hastings Star-Gazette).
  • The bill is the subject of other legislation, such as at least two failed resolutions in the Arizona Legislature; several other states too, if the WorldNetDaily clues are followed.
  • Many sources remain to be added, and 5 days is enough to gauge that they do exist even if they don't have time to be added.
  • Deletionist arguments started as "impassable", shifted to "nonnoted", then were salvaged as dividing and conquering the hundreds of potential sources for this article into significant unreliable and reliable insignificant. However, there is significant reliable coverage in, for example, NR and the Victoria Advocate (a local editor that knows and endorses the bill is still presumed to be independent and reliable). When dozens of smaller papers find the topic worthy of inclusion in letters to the editor, that becomes significant. And the many reliable mentions in anti-UN articles would argue for merge instead of delete, or (with the other notability marks, as I said) would show that merge would create imbalance in the parent article.

In short, if you told me one bill got dozens of letters to the editor published, several notable advocacy organizations, several mentions in legislation by state houses, independent coverage in books and journals, and several detailed discussions in news sources which favor it, I'd find it notable no matter what it said. Imagine a bill that would legislate the worst pseudoscience or cultism or political error you can imagine. Yet if so many nationwide legislators, editors, advocacy groups, alternative media, and authors are taking note of it, um, it's notable. One can't dismiss them all as excluded just because the NYX-WSJ cabal ignores it. JJB 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - there isn't really the reliable sources to make this piece of non-legislation notable -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Have any of those in favor of deletion looked at the sources? There are more valid references here than are had by most GAs; that's ignoring the hundreds of other articles that can be found on a ProQuest search. I've never seen anything this obviously notable before brought to AfD; please, please, please review the relevant material and keep American politics out of AfDs. Celarnor Talk to me 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Like the massive number of letters to the editor with broken links that John J. Bulten (talk · contribs) keeps adding to the article, or the article sourced to Ron Paul's website, or the one from the college newspaper? Burzmali (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No, like the one from the US Federal news service (American Sovereignty Restoration Act US Fed News Service, Including US State News. Washington, D.C.: Mar 1, 2007), and the one from the San Antonio Express (Focus: United Nations; [METRO Edition]. San Antonio Express-News. San Antonio, Tex.: May 20, 2001. pg. 4G). Celarnor Talk to me 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Do they do anything more than mention the bill and then go on an anti-UN screed or mention the bill and then praise Ron Paul for his efforts to fight the "man"? Burzmali (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
They present information about the bill and the implications it would have on US foreign policy. Call it whatever you want; although, no, these aren't partisan like some of the other relevant sources. Celarnor Talk to me 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep While I do question the inclusion of mentions and links to letters to the editor on the subject, tehre are adequate reliable and verifiabel sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is certainly notable. Much more so than many other things on WP. I went ahead and removed the letters to the editor section however. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm just curious, why is it notable? As it is a piece of Ron Paul legislation, it has essentially no chance at becoming a law or even being discussed in committee. Some fringe elements have latched on to it, some vaguely mainstream sources have printed letter's to the editor about it or used it as an example of how wacky Ron Paul is. To call a spade a spade like 90% of all Ron Paul legislation this bill is an attempt for Ron Paul to appeal to his base. Burzmali (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete still don't see the notability. Could be merged elsewhere. Lots of bills get to Congress; many year after year after year. Even the discussions of "what it means for the US" are purely speculative. King Pickle (talk) 19:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
All of philosophy is speculative in nature, but that doesn't stop the various philosophical systems from being considered notable since they have received coverage and academic discussion. Celarnor Talk to me 20:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing Admin, please read this WP:N says:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
  • "Presumed" means objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors.[1] Substantive coverage in reliable sources suggests that the subject is notable.[2]
  • "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[3]
  • "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[4]
  • "Sources,"[5] defined on Wikipedia as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[6]
  • "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[7]
  • A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within another article
Where is this article failing? Answer that for me please (not trying to be sarcastic, just asking the question). Dustitalk to me 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Articles that have "Significant coverage" tend to fail "Reliable" (letters to the editor, college newspaper), or "Independent" (LewRockwell.com). Articles that are "Reliable" tend to lack "Significant coverage" (anti-UN or Pro-Paul/Libertarianism). How about one article from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, or any other major national paper? Burzmali (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • here you go, look through the hits, you'll find several with the NYT Dustitalk to me 17:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Try that one instead Use of google news and quotes to ensure that the two phrases are found in their entirely turns up zero hits. Burzmali (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • And if you do it here you get something (I added quotes around each. Either way, there are hits all around for the bill. Why do you feel it necessary to delete? When obviously (just googling the name with quotes) you get 2,440 hits. That fails WP:N how? Dustitalk to me 18:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
        • All NYT articles are listed on Google News, so no articles about this bill have appeared in the NYT. I nominated the article for deletion because I believe that legislation that does not or will not make it through committee is non-notable unless there is good evidence that it passes WP:N. Personally, I think that the topic belongs on the United States withdrawal from the United Nations article (where it is already mentioned) until the actual mainstream media bothers to take notice of it. Since the bill has existed in some form since at least 2001, I have significant doubts that this will happen. Burzmali (talk) 20:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
          • You are entitled to your opinions and I have offered mine. I have established notability by pointing out numerous hits on Google, and you fail to recognize those because its not with the New York times or whatever. There are notable hits on the google links above. Since there is so much discussion here, this AFD will likley close as No Consensus. I suggest you withdraw. Dustitalk to me 20:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
            • Withdrawal isn't possible, it's not unanimous. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
              • I do not understand Burzmali's latest statements. If he thinks it belongs in the other article, why did he go to AFD instead of proposing a merge in the first place? How can he base his rationale partly on the notability of legislation that "will not make it" without a WP:CRYSTAL ball? If he thinks all such legislation is nonnotable, why do his latest deletion nominations include only five Paul bills, Carol Paul, and Paul-friendly The American View, if they are not POV nominations? Why does he use the 2001 date when it's obvious the bill was first introduced in 1997? Why does he think the hundreds of citations should defer to silence by "actual mainstream media"? JJB 21:17, 14 April 2008 (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.