Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Service Act of 2006

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 keep --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Service Act of 2006

National Service Act of 2006 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Simply a copy of information available elsewhere, fails WP:NOTE. --TheTallOne 08:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, although I'd be happier if there was a reasonable place to merge it to, something about the reinstating draft debate. It is fairly clear that this bill was introduced not to pass but to generate more debate regarding the Iraq war. There was some news coverage of it (although not a lot) and quite a bit of reaction in the blogosphere. The mainstream media coverage includes NYT[1] Boston Globe[2], CBSNews[3], Sacramento Bee [4], HalifaxLive[5] and a few others. Nsk92 (talk) 12:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have added a section on public debate in relation to the bill, with a number of news media references. The page still needs a lot of work, though. Nsk92 (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, its a useful content fork for the draft article. MrPrada (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikisource, inappropriate content for an encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the references provided in National_Service_Act_of_2006#References indicate sufficient coverage of this topic in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of its notability per the general notability guideline, and as the article includes an extensive discussion of the act attributed to third-party reliable sources, in addition to the text of the act itself. Concerns regarding the inclusion of the public domain text of the act should be addressed by discussion on the talk page, rather than by the deletion of the entire article. John254 00:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs clean up but AfD is not a request for clean up. As per John 254 there are adeqaute references to establish notability.--Matilda talk 17:52, 20 May 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.