Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US House Resolution 333

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 while closing as no consensus would be an easy solution there are a number of considerations to this discussion. Is WP:NOTABILITY by being the subject of multiple independent reliable sources enough for a keep result versus WP:NOT indiscriminate collection. Theres the questions that remained unanswered is the subject something that will last the test of time, is the article name appropriate, should it be merged into another article and which one. Gnangarra 09:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] US House Resolution 333

US House Resolution 333 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. Article fails to meet the notability test required for all wikipedia articles. JasonCNJ 21:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

We know what Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And we know that a subject must be notable. I feel this article fails to meet the notability standards.

Thousands of bill and resolutions are filed in Congress every session. Most never get a hearing or a vote. I do not think we should create entries on every bill filed in Wikipedia (but I suppose that's an argument for another day and another page.) I do think that any congressional resolution or bill must meet strict standards of notability to ensure that Wikipedia does not become an indiscriminate collector of information.

I've seen the news story relating to this question being asked in a Democratic presidential debate. But I do not think that makes it notable. Notability is something that must be "significant." That means more than trivial or passing reference to it. I do not think one question in a minor presidential debate is anything more than "trivial."

There exist few sources of outside coverage on this subject. Its sponsor had a news conference, but I do not think that meets the defition of outside sources. Legitimate news organizations have mentioned the story -- but mere mention is not sufficient to establish notability.

I am not new, but I am not inexperienced on Wikipedia. I am open to debate and precedent. But, at this time, I do not feel the article is question has sufficient notability to merit inclusion in an encyclopedia.

JasonCNJ 21:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Article concerns topic of significant interest in current US politics.--OtisTDog 22:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The article concerns the actual document used to file impeachment charges against Vice President Cheney on 24 April 2007. Prior to the creation of US House Resolution 333, separate discussions of these articles of impeachment had already sprung up at Richard Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. This article was created to be a common ground for those discussions, and I created links to it from applicable locations.

JasonCNJ is an early participant in the process, and has contributed significantly to the article's progress. I would like to once again thank him for his efforts on this matter. His efforts are particularly appreciated in light of the fact that he stated early on that he was hostile to its existence and had been considering filing an AfD on it.

Regarding notability concerns, there has been significantly more discussion about the article subject than is currently cited. I have chosen not to include this material to date in order to help prevent the typical POV conflicts associated with politically contentious issues. I have so far tried to limit article content to three things: contents of the resolution, history of the resolution's introduction into Congress and subsequent accumulation of co-sponsors, and background information regarding the US political process that can help readers to gauge its likely impact. I have supported cited quotes from only key players in the political process that will determine the resolution's outcome, but other notable commentary exists, and has been growing over the last few days. (See, as a prominent example, today's opinion piece by Richard Cohen at the Washington Post, which is not at this time included in the article.)

JasonCNJ seems to think it is a foregone conclusion that the articles of impeachment will fail to move out of committee, which may affect his judgment of notability. He is entitled to his prediction, but he cannot know the future. Although the current content of the article is relatively small, I ask you to consider WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL in your determination on notability. I believe it is reasonable to expect that this subject will become of increasing interest over the 110th Congress and/or the 2008 election cycle. Even assuming this prediction does not bear out, I contend that it is a greater error to eliminate this early version (and lose its work) than it is to allow it to linger for a few months.

In formal response to JasonCNJ's arguments re: notability, I submit that House Resolution 333 is not a typical bill -- subjectively, consider that it's not everyday business to impeach high government officials; objectively, its mention (not by name but as "Dennis Kucinich's plan") in the recent primary debates should be enough to set it apart from the pack.

This article has attracted the attention of User:Tim Long, User:Stemonitis, User:Nima Baghaei, and User:GTBacchus, in addition to myself and JasonCNJ. I hope that their opinion will be solicited before the nomination is closed.--OtisTDog 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to notability concerns expressed by others here, I have added a number of sources covering the topic to my user page. Many of these sources are ones that I have deliberately left out of the article because they are only political opinion, and, as stated above, I would very much like to exclude that sort of material unless it comes from the mouth of a key player in the resolution's consideration.

My first batch includes at least 12 sources from publications that are notable enough to have their own page here at Wikipedia. Searches are complicated by the fact that many people discussing this resolution do not know the resolution's title or number.--OtisTDog 02:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep I think this is important, but could use more info on what would be needed to make impeachment a reality. Tim Long 23:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I would think that would be largely original reasearch. Heimstern Läufer 00:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete This is ridiculous. The mere fact that a bill is proposed is not sufficient justification for an article here. This is not a catalog of proposed bills in Congress, else this project will expand by literally hundreds of thousands of articles. If this bill makes it beyond the stage of a political stunt by a candidate with no shot of achieving his parties nomination (which it obviously won't) then it would be worthwhile. A search on Yahoo News for the name of this bill produced ONE result. As it stands, this is no more significant than any of the other thousands upon thousands upon thousands of bills that are proposed, and go nowhere. JCO312 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• The Google searches that I've done seem to turn up a heck of a lot of blogs, forums and activist sites and very few reliable sources. The few that do exist (such as the brief stories given in the article) do suggest some coverage is definitely worthwile, perhaps in Dick Cheney and Dennis Kucinich. Heimstern Läufer 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete: Worthy subject matter, but poorly written and formatted article. It either needs a lot of work or do be deleted.WikiFishy 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, although this has only slightly more than zero chance of proceeding, it is notable. Note that two Democrats have co-sponsored the bill as of today. [1] No, we don't need to document every resolution introduced, but in point of fact very few resolutions attract any press attention before becoming bills, and this one has. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Temporary keep People have been talking about impeaching Cheney since 2001 but that doesn't necessarily make this resolution more notable. If the resolution is brought to a floor vote then it'll be clearly notable. I suggest that it be kept until we can tell if it's likely to progress. If it doesn't come to the floor I'd vote to delete it. -Will Beback · † · 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep this is a resolution that has been submitted and has received endorsement from other politicians, it is current news and has the potential to become very big news in the future if many more members support it. The article itself is also a good description of the actual resolution and its history and given the nature of wikipedia on being very open and encouraging towards the development of articles, i believe this is a keep. Also, it would be great if we also added the actual resolution to Wikisource (just an idea hehe) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 12:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Endorsed legislation of clear historical importance. Owen 21:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not every story that makes it into (buried) newspaper articles is notable. At this stage, this is just a resolution, and WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL.--Work permit 09:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. This bill is, as mentioned, historic. Even if it fails, it is a potent sign of the extreme antipathy the Democratic Party and others hold for Cheney, and by implication, Bush. This is not just another bill that is doomed to die in committee; this is an impeachment. This issue has been discussed by AP and Newsweek, if any more objective requirement of notability is necessary. Syckls 19:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article sources several reliable published sources, which is the real reason you want notiability, namely: have several people written and published about the topic so that the article is not original research. That Pelosi has had to announce that she considers the issue off the table caused the topic to be reported by many news sources. -- Yellowdesk 20:31, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

• Comment This article needs renaming badly. Resolution numbers reset to 1 at the start of each U.S. Congress, so there are a lot of different H. Res. 333's. Caerwine Caer’s whines 22:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comment, Caerwine. The original title for the stub was "US House Resolution 333 (110th Congress)". I am not sure what happened to rename it, but I assumed it was renamed by someone with more knowledge than me about Wikipedia's article naming conventions. Would the original title be more appropriate, in your mind? If not, do you have (or does anyone have) any title suggestions?--OtisTDog 03:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it's a relevant event and a proposal in the legislature. Why would you delete unless you have an agenda? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It belongs in wikinews. An obviously dead bill does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Blue Tie 13:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Two important things to bear in mind. First, the resolution is not yet dead and cannot be accurately identified as dead until it is either voted down or the current Congressional session ends. Second, discussion had already arisen in at least two locations in Wikipedia prior to the creation of this article. (See above.) Do you recommend that all such content be removed?--OtisTDog 14:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It will never be declared dead. Ever. But it is still dead. It dies in committee. It never comes up for vote. That is the fate of most bills. As far as all such comment? Maybe. It would depend. I would have to see the particulars, but this is so non-notable that I think this hardly deserves even a single sentence in the Dick Cheeney article, much less a whole article on its own. I mean, imagine this sentence in the Dick Cheeny article: "A resolution for his impeachment was presented to the Congress by Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Cucinich. Cucinich acted on his own without discussing the bill with House leadership and it subsequently died in committee, as did his support from the Democratic National Committee and the House Leadership." Well that last phrase would not make it in, but it is what will happen and it is an example of why this is such a stupid article. Perhaps the most notable place for it to reside would be in the Dennis Cucinich article in a few months where it is described as one of the reasons his bid for the White House did not even pass muster in his own party. --Blue Tie 14:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Describing this article as such a stupid article doesn't seem likely to advance the debate to a conclusion. If I might paraphrase what you've said above: you believe that the bill introduced lacks sufficient notability to be included in the encyclopedia in & of itself, and that it is very unlikely to become notable by being taken up and put to a vote, because of its very unlikely prospects of ever seeing the House floor. Have I accurately captured your position?A bill dies if it doesn't come to a vote by the end of the legislative session. No declaration is made, as such. The bill dies when the legislative session dies, at its adjournment. --Ssbohio 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you generously reworded my comments in a positive way. Thank you. You are right about the technical death of a bill though in fact it dies even sooner than the end of the session.--Blue Tie 01:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge Notable as part of the Bush impeachment that has been in contention for several years. Also, THOMAS shows that bills of impeachment of a President or Vice-President are comparatively rare. I'd be just as happy to see it merged, or to see it kept & treated as a spinoff from Dick Cheney, Dennis Kucinich, or movement to impeach George W. Bush. --Ssbohio 17:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
• keep - Anna Nicole Smith is dead, but we haven't deleted her stupid article... yet. As for this Resolution, it seems notable in being a direct call for impeachment. It looks well referenced. Anyway, I'd also support merging to movement to impeach George W. Bush as above, if it is preferred. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 01:18, 12 May 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.