Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007
Source: 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 Delete.
]Cures Can Be Found Act of 2007
- )
This proposed bill has very little chance at becoming law, and lacks coverage in the media. The only reference is to the bill's sponsor's (Ron Paul) website, which doesn't establish the proposal's notability. I would suggest that the article could be recreated without prejudice if the bill passes. Burzmali (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Congressional bills aren't necessarily notable. RJC Talk 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - No shred of evidence of notability; apparently just trying to add publicity for Ron Paul. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. More non-notable Ron Paul ]
- Strong delete --- less notable than other similar article that failed AfD. --- tqbf 22:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral on this one, but not necessarily on any other AFD by the same nominator. I have moved a couple sentences to Stem cell controversy#Congressional response, which appears the most appropriate resolution. Also note that crystal-ball arguments are not valid; Ron Paul Library is not Paul's site but a supporter's; and the article was created in 2005 long before Paul publicity or fancruft was any motive (the most likely motive is simple pro-life publicity). Please do not overstate your arguments, thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment So this article is really about a failed "Act of 2005" and was retitled? All the more argument to delete as pathetically non-notable. (And why are you invoking WP:CRYSTAL, John? It's irrelevant to the article in question, and nobody but you had brought it up. I'm confused...) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment So this article is really about a failed "Act of 2005" and was retitled? All the more argument to delete as pathetically non-notable. (And why are you invoking
- Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Paulcruft unless evidence of coverage from reliable sources is provided. Terraxos (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, as a failed act, and a non-notable one at that. No bill has been proposed in the US Senate, so it has zero chance of being passed. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.