- 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 merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or to a related, more spefici article. There is clear consensus that a standalone is not warranted at this time. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
H.R. 3325 (117th Congress)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article consists of only WP:PRIMARY sources, and I could find no secondary ones in my WP:BEFORE search. That leads me to conclude the article's subject does not meet WP:N.
Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we were on WikiLaw because I think the article is otherwise well written. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Stumbled upon this article myself just a short bit ago and have tried to do what I can cleanup-wise, but I agree, this really isn't all that notable – just procedural stuff. Would probably support a merge to one of the many 1/6-related articles over a delete, but I agree, alone this act hasn't received major coverage. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 06:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or a related article. Few readers are going to know this law by its number so few would want to look it up that way. However, some readers who are interested in the aftermath of the Capitol attack might be interested in Congress honoring the Capitol police as a result and would expect to find this information in a Capitol attack-related article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Comment there are no secondary sources will be fixed. There are now copious news stories about the bill and awarding it in a Rose Garden Ceremony. As the public law awards the Congressional Gold Medal, this is hugely warranted as an article. The award has been granted less than 200 times in our nation's history, which makes it notable in and of itself, even if it was not for the circumstances in which it was awarded. Esvabird ( talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourcing is not an issue; it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination, and has six now. It's sufficiently distinct from 2021 United States Capitol attack that it deserves separate coverage; and in fact, merging it could likely lead to sacrificing worthy information on the alter of WP:UNDUE.
- I agree that H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) is a lousy name, but not because of its numeric nature. Many bills/statutes have short names, whether named descriptively (e.g., the Copyright Act of 1976), after its major proponent (e.g., the Lanham Act), or to be clever or to market it (e.g., the TREAD Act or the USAPATRIOT Act); but many have either long boring summarizing names (e.g. "an Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy" or occasionally name at all. (This one is technically named An Act to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, but that's too long for a Wikipedia article name.) The naming of a statute has little bearing on whether the statute is notable.
- However, this article is misnamed because it's named for the unenacted bill (and only as considered in the House of Representatives); because the bill was enacted into law (which is part of the reason it's notable), it should be named for the statute. It is the enacted law (Public Law 117-32) that is the notable; not the proposed bill that led to the law. (As a side benefit, naming for the law itself avoids the need for the "(117th Congress)" disambiguity; the congressional identification "117" is baked into the public law designation itself.) TJRC ( talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
TJRC:
it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination
Excuse me, but what? Which one of these sources were not primary. We have congress.gov, govinfo.gov, whitehouse.gov, c-span.org, and youtube.com (where the video is uploaded by the official White House YouTube channel). None of those qualify as anything but primary sources. Now you are saying there is six, but all I see is two: [1] [2] (which were not present at the time of nomination nor could I find them in my WP:BEFORE because they don't actually mention the bill number). – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)- TJRC May I introduce you to The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure Kingoflettuce ( talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
TJRC:
Keepas notable but I agree that an article name change is probably in order Kingoflettuce ( talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm more persuaded by the Merge arguments. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 01:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:ATD-M. Article is short and unlikely to be expanded. An ideal (best conceivable) merge target already exists: Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill. The content has been copied there (it's needed there, and fits there naturally; which is not to say that the style of prose is perfect). As an independent article, this brings nothing to Wikipedia. At this point it's just duplicate content. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
AllegedlyHuman and
Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up):
Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- If that's how the merge would look, I wouldn't object. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
AllegedlyHuman and
Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up):
Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject of the parent article is itself non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, so it follows that the subject of this article is non-notable. Another reason to delete is mentioned by the nominator, the article is based mainly on primary sources and not secondary sources. 05:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per Alalch Emis. Love of Corey ( talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (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.
- 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 merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or to a related, more spefici article. There is clear consensus that a standalone is not warranted at this time. Vanamonde ( Talk) 12:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
H.R. 3325 (117th Congress)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article consists of only WP:PRIMARY sources, and I could find no secondary ones in my WP:BEFORE search. That leads me to conclude the article's subject does not meet WP:N.
Of course, this wouldn't be an issue if we were on WikiLaw because I think the article is otherwise well written. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 06:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Stumbled upon this article myself just a short bit ago and have tried to do what I can cleanup-wise, but I agree, this really isn't all that notable – just procedural stuff. Would probably support a merge to one of the many 1/6-related articles over a delete, but I agree, alone this act hasn't received major coverage. AllegedlyHuman ( talk) 06:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge to 2021 United States Capitol attack or a related article. Few readers are going to know this law by its number so few would want to look it up that way. However, some readers who are interested in the aftermath of the Capitol attack might be interested in Congress honoring the Capitol police as a result and would expect to find this information in a Capitol attack-related article. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Comment there are no secondary sources will be fixed. There are now copious news stories about the bill and awarding it in a Rose Garden Ceremony. As the public law awards the Congressional Gold Medal, this is hugely warranted as an article. The award has been granted less than 200 times in our nation's history, which makes it notable in and of itself, even if it was not for the circumstances in which it was awarded. Esvabird ( talk) 21:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Sourcing is not an issue; it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination, and has six now. It's sufficiently distinct from 2021 United States Capitol attack that it deserves separate coverage; and in fact, merging it could likely lead to sacrificing worthy information on the alter of WP:UNDUE.
- I agree that H.R. 3325 (117th Congress) is a lousy name, but not because of its numeric nature. Many bills/statutes have short names, whether named descriptively (e.g., the Copyright Act of 1976), after its major proponent (e.g., the Lanham Act), or to be clever or to market it (e.g., the TREAD Act or the USAPATRIOT Act); but many have either long boring summarizing names (e.g. "an Act to Protect the Commerce of the United States and Punish the Crime of Piracy" or occasionally name at all. (This one is technically named An Act to award four congressional gold medals to the United States Capitol Police and those who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, but that's too long for a Wikipedia article name.) The naming of a statute has little bearing on whether the statute is notable.
- However, this article is misnamed because it's named for the unenacted bill (and only as considered in the House of Representatives); because the bill was enacted into law (which is part of the reason it's notable), it should be named for the statute. It is the enacted law (Public Law 117-32) that is the notable; not the proposed bill that led to the law. (As a side benefit, naming for the law itself avoids the need for the "(117th Congress)" disambiguity; the congressional identification "117" is baked into the public law designation itself.) TJRC ( talk) 23:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
TJRC:
it had four non-primary sources at the time of nomination
Excuse me, but what? Which one of these sources were not primary. We have congress.gov, govinfo.gov, whitehouse.gov, c-span.org, and youtube.com (where the video is uploaded by the official White House YouTube channel). None of those qualify as anything but primary sources. Now you are saying there is six, but all I see is two: [1] [2] (which were not present at the time of nomination nor could I find them in my WP:BEFORE because they don't actually mention the bill number). – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)- TJRC May I introduce you to The Fable of the Kid Who Shifted His Ideals to Golf and Finally Became a Baseball Fan and Took the Only Known Cure Kingoflettuce ( talk) 10:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
TJRC:
Keepas notable but I agree that an article name change is probably in order Kingoflettuce ( talk) 10:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'm more persuaded by the Merge arguments. Kingoflettuce ( talk) 01:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per WP:ATD-M. Article is short and unlikely to be expanded. An ideal (best conceivable) merge target already exists: Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill. The content has been copied there (it's needed there, and fits there naturally; which is not to say that the style of prose is perfect). As an independent article, this brings nothing to Wikipedia. At this point it's just duplicate content. — Alalch Emis ( talk) 19:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
AllegedlyHuman and
Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up):
Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- If that's how the merge would look, I wouldn't object. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
- @
AllegedlyHuman and
Metropolitan90: Since you mentioned merging as a possibility -- please comment on the proposed end state of the merger (already up):
Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack#Posthumous awards bill
— Alalch Emis (
talk) 19:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. The subject of the parent article is itself non-notable, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftermath of the 2021 United States Capitol attack, so it follows that the subject of this article is non-notable. Another reason to delete is mentioned by the nominator, the article is based mainly on primary sources and not secondary sources. 05:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
- Merge per Alalch Emis. Love of Corey ( talk) 01:22, 31 August 2021 (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.