Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foreign Soil Freedom Act

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 of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign Soil Freedom Act

• Delete Zen Destiny 00:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC) actually, i recommend delete myself now. i obviously like the bill since i wrote it but it doesnt rise to encyclopedic standards. one day it will though. peace out.

Hypothetical legislation written by this guy. Does not appear to have been introduced by any legislator.

• Delete. Gazpacho 04:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unless there is evidence that this is something other than a fictitious bill - Bootstoots 04:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete can we delete his page to while we're at it? --Pboyd04 04:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  No, because User:Surrealization's edit history shows that it's him, and I've userfied it accordingly. Gazpacho 04:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Great. Now, can we delete the redirect? It doesn't seem appropriate to have a redirect in wiki namespace to a user page. Does it need to go through AfD? bikeable (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Rudykog 04:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NeoJustin 04:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• No it doesn't. Just because you wrote it makes it in no way encyclopedic. After all, does anyone besides you (and now the readers of this AfD) even know of its existence? --Agamemnon2 07:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• actually yes. i've forwarded it to members of congress and have received responses, including from senator edward kennedy, although, yes it is correct that i have not found a sponsor for the bill. Zen Destiny 11:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)11:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• The question is not whether Wikipedia should have an article about abuses of rights which the Foreign Soil Freedom Act is intended to prevent. Wikipedia already covers that issue in articles such as USA PATRIOT Act controversy and possibly others. However, the Foreign Soil Freedom Act is just one private citizen's proposal to prevent abuses, and it would not itself become notable at least until it is introduced into Congress, and more likely not until it actually passes Congress (lots of bills are introduced into Congress which never get anywhere). My recommendation is to Delete. --Metropolitan90 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. When/If the act is debated and passed by Congress, re-consider. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete Not yet notable. Choalbaton 13:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, POV, speculation, lacking even the redeeming feature of being funny. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity, speculation. Some guy writing to his congressman about a bill he came up with and wants passed isn't really encyclopedic on it's own. If and when a Congressman actually sponsors it and it begins the actual legislative process as a real bill, maybe, and if it actually passes then definitely, but not now. --Wingsandsword 19:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Recreate if it is ever sponsored by a legislator. Movementarian 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pablo-flores. -- ReyBrujo 02:18, 30 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.