Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parental Consent 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 was delete. Bongwarrior (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Parental Consent Act

Parental Consent Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested Prod. This article is about a bill that has yet to be passed, and that is unlikely to be passed. There are no secondary sources listed, and no significant discussion of the bill in the mainstream media. Allow recreation of article without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Bill was introduced in 2004. Article is an attempt to build support for a Presidential candidate. Strandwolf (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A short, neutral, descriptive and useful article about a historical thing. 4,560 google hits for the term. `'Míkka>t 17:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete --- no-brainer; this is proposed legislation that has obtained no press coverage, or coverage in any reliable source. Any conceivable argument for notability is WP:CRYSTAL. Delete w/o prejudice, and if something actually comes of it, re-add later. Note that by Paul advocates own admission, the WP would have something like 50 more RP articles if we covered every random bill he introduced. WP does this for no other politician. --- tqbf 17:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: This article was created in 2005 on then-current debate, which may be harder to find now. And WP:OTHERSTUFF: nobody is advocating creating separate articles covering every random bill Paul has introduced. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 18:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. This proposed legislation is non-notable, as it has been on referral to committee for months with no action taken, like hundreds of other bills which are introduced into Congress every year. Also, many of the Google hits for "Parental Consent Act" refer to unrelated state legislation rather than to this bill in Congress. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is non-notable should be deleted. Bill was also introduced in 2004. Ohmpandya (Talk) 18:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Excuse me, the reason this article exists and has so many editors over the years is notable historical public debate over ADHD and other health issues in 2005, especially among the homeschool segment. As you can see at easily Googled articles in the journals Behavioral Health Management and Psychiatric News, there is reliable source coverage, which someone should incorporate into the article. The bill was also supported in an article by a Georgia state senator. Likelihood of passage (a prediction) is not a criterion for deletion; and the article is by its history emphatically not a candidate endorsement attempt, nor do my updating edits introduce any endorsement skew. There might be an argument for merging content from the article and these new sources into New Freedom Commission on Mental Health or TeenScreen, but I think such a merge would turn an article into a WP:COATRACK. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  Add another magazine: Weill Cornell Medicine, p. 12-13 article.

  You're seriously putting forward a single sentence in a student newspaper as a significant independent coverage in a reliable source? --- tqbf 19:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

  No, I'm citing an alumni magazine as additional coverage to the previously named reliable sources. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Will ^(talk) 18:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable legislation. Maybe once it passes the subcommittees... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete unless it at the least reaches the floor. A proposed act, even one not passed, that attracts major comments from the national press is probably notable, but not every introduced piece of legislation. If the sources are as sparse as this, it isnt notable. DGG (talk) 07:11, 1 January 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.