Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The IDPPPA (S.3728)

Add links
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. Discarded a !vote from a banned sock - consensus otherwise is to delete Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IDPPPA (S.3728)

The IDPPPA (S.3728) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The IDPPPA (S.3728) is the "The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act", non-notable proposed legislation that has not even made it out of committee and has no hope of becoming law. There is one month left in the current congress. To become law, this bill would have to 1) get out of the Senate committee; 2) be brought to a vote in the Senate; 3) passed in the Senate; 4) be sent to the House; 5) be harmonized with HR 2196, which is also stuck in committee; 6) be brought to a vote in the House; 7) get passed in the House; 8) in all likelihood, be subjected to a conference where the differences between the House and Senate bills are worked out; 9) bring the hammered-out bill to a vote in the House; 10) pass in the House; 11) bring the bill to a vote in the Senate; 12) pass in the Senate -- all in a lame-duck Congress in its last month.

I PRODded ([1]). After some edits that did not address notability ([2]), the PROD was declined by the article's principle editor, with no reason given ([3]).

This is the latest in a series of bills to provide for design protection, going back to at least the

disco era
(S 1361 was introduce in the 93rd Congress in 1973, during the Nixon administration) and consistently failing. Other similar failed bills include:

  • 93rd Congress: S 1361, HR 8186, HR 14922, HR 15522
  • 94th Congress: HR 2223, S 22 (Title I of S.22 turned into the
    1976 Copyright Act
    , but only after the conference committee sliced off Title II, the Design Protection Act of 1975);
  • 96th Congress: HR 2706, HR 4530;
  • 97th Congress: HR 20;
  • 98th Congress: HR 2985;
  • 99th Congress: HR 1900, HR 3776;
  • 100th Congress: HR 1179, S 791;
  • 101st Congress: HR 902, HR 3017, HR3499;
  • 102nd Congress: HR 1790;
  • 105th Congress: HR 2281 (this bill later mutated into the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that is now Title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; its generalized design protection provisions went nowhere);
  • 109th Congress: HR 5005;
  • 110th Congress: HR 2033, S 1957;
  • 111th (current) Congress: H 2196 and S3728.

The article also needs cleanup and renaming if kept; but my nomination is based on lack of notability, not those issues (which could be fixed). TJRC (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions... First, why do you believe it's notable? That's the ultimate question to determine whether to keep, but you don't indicate how you reach that conclusion. Do you believe that it's more notable than the other couple dozen or so failed bills? If so, what is different about this one? Or so you believe that all of the bills are notable and each ought to have an article, despite never having been enacted? In which case, what is different about these bills from the other thousands of bills that are never enacted?
Second, what do you mean when you say it's notable "in the current landscape of IP cases"? Are you suggesting that it's notable right now, but not permanently? That suggests mere newsworthiness, and runs counter to both
WP:NTEMP
(notability is not temporary).
Also, not to nitpick too much, but this isn't an "IP case" at all; it's proposed legislation. If it were an actual litigated case construing actual enacted legislation, it would be much more likely to be deemed notable. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I disagree with the idea that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. Many draft Bills are written but never even debated, let along enacted; many attract little comment and have no lasting impact, which are the kind of criteria we noramlyl use to judge notability.... The Land (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, strongly disagree that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. There have been over 4000 bills in the Senate alone this Congress; another 6000 or so in the House. Can one really argue with a straight face that 10,000 bills per Congress are notable, within the meaning of Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm not saying it's a bad idea to track proposed bills; but that's not the role of an encyclopedia, and existing resources already do that. See
OpenCongress ([6]) for a few examples. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, that coverage is simply because it's currently in the news, and
notability is not temporary. Three weeks from now, this bill will be just one more unenacted design bill, like all the other unenacted design bills before it, will no longer be newsworthy and no longer be covered in the news. This is the distinction between mere newsworthiness and notability. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_IDPPPA_(S.3728)&oldid=1141942904"