Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teacher Tax Cut 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. Kurykh 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teacher Tax Cut Act

Teacher Tax Cut Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Proposed legislation that has little chance at passing. No discussion in Congress about the bill, and the only mention of the bill in the media is limited to a couple of teacher advocacy publications which merely confirm its existence, and Ron Paul's . Allow for recreation without prejudice if it passes. Burzmali (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable sources or coverage because...

It's just a bill.
Yes, it's only a bill.
And it's sitting there on Capitol Hill.
Well, it's a long, long journey
To the capital city.
It's a long, long wait
While it's sitting in committee,
But who knows if it'll be a law some day
At least some hope and pray that it will
But today it is still just a bill.

-- Whpq (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proof positive that the lessons of Schoolhouse Rock were indeed memorable. Say, do you know "Conjunction Junction"? Mandsford (talk) 03:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - article cites a secondary source, and there are almost 800 google hits. It is likely that people will search for information on pending legislation. Boowah59 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply: which secondary source do you think establishes notability? Government documents show existence, but every single bill ever introduced will result in a document. The other references don't seem to mee WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I see two non-government reliable secondary sources.[1][2] I have to admit I'm something of an inclusionist when it comes to pending legislation. I would not mind one bit if we had an article on every bill stalled in committee in the Guatemalan parliament. MilesAgain (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Both sources are special interest groups, and the first article is just five sentences in total. These don't really look like something that would meet WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2008 (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. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable bill on a path to nowhere. I sense the Ron Paul maniacs have something to do with this article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, and that's how a Bill becomes a Deleted Article. ViperSnake151 14:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, Ronpaulinalia cleverly disguised as a non-notable bill. As above, there is no indication that this bill is going anywhere except to oblivion. Lankiveil ^{(complaints | disco)} 02:54, 27 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.