Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transportation Act of 1920

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 Redirect. I hope folks actually looked at the article here -- it is, in its entirety, the text of the law. That's the definition of WP:NOT. Having said that, there is no iron-clad prohibition on keeping this in the history of a redirect, so I will do that. The redirect should not be undone with a complete rewrite. Xoloz (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation Act of 1920

Transportation Act of 1920 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Transwiki to Wikisource. Corvus cornixtalk 21:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • If I remember correctly, this act reversed an act during World War I that effectively nationalized the operation of United States railways. If so, this topic is notable, but the presentation of this article (including a large swath of the original law) doesn't give any context to the reader. I'd recommend a full rewrite in this case. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect to United States Railroad Administration for now. I wouldn't transwiki as this is only part of the bill, and in any case it applies to more things such as waterways and labor. A proper article would treat all of that. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Isn't this... um, notable? --Sharkface217 02:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if expanded. It is notable, but it needs at least a minimal discussion, not just the text of the bill, to make it a WP article. DGG (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as the basis of at least one US Supreme Court case, United States v. McBoyle. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - The subject is notable, but the current article is not a basis from which to build an article as it needs to be rewritten completely from scratch. -- Whpq (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (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.