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.
Comment the article is a stub and there is minimal coverage of the topic - apart from the theregreview.org source I don't think any of the link above are useful. Converting this to a redirect to the government agency that runs the website would be my preference, but it is unclear what the subject of the
eRulemaking article is, and
General Services Administration is too high-level a topic to redirect.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The fact that the article is just a stub does not mean it should be deleted; as per
WP:N “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article” and “Article content does not determine notability.”
Google Scholar has 16,700 hits for “regulations.gov” in quotation marks; however, many (or most) of these “hits” are actually regulations.gov comments rather than scholartly articles about the regulations.gov website, and a
search of Google Scholar for case law makes it evident that even the use of quotation marks does not limit the query results to those referencing the website. There are
only 2 district-court opinions referencing the phrase, “website regulations.gov” and no published cases referencing “regulations.gov website” or “regulations.gov site.” I would still vote to keep my own article.
Bwrs (
talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep A government website which plays a role in lawmaking and public comment and an absolutely terrible rationale to delete. Nate•(
chatter) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Skynxnex.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 28 April 2023 (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.
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.
Comment the article is a stub and there is minimal coverage of the topic - apart from the theregreview.org source I don't think any of the link above are useful. Converting this to a redirect to the government agency that runs the website would be my preference, but it is unclear what the subject of the
eRulemaking article is, and
General Services Administration is too high-level a topic to redirect.
Walt Yoder (
talk) 18:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)reply
The fact that the article is just a stub does not mean it should be deleted; as per
WP:N “Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article” and “Article content does not determine notability.”
Google Scholar has 16,700 hits for “regulations.gov” in quotation marks; however, many (or most) of these “hits” are actually regulations.gov comments rather than scholartly articles about the regulations.gov website, and a
search of Google Scholar for case law makes it evident that even the use of quotation marks does not limit the query results to those referencing the website. There are
only 2 district-court opinions referencing the phrase, “website regulations.gov” and no published cases referencing “regulations.gov website” or “regulations.gov site.” I would still vote to keep my own article.
Bwrs (
talk) 23:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep A government website which plays a role in lawmaking and public comment and an absolutely terrible rationale to delete. Nate•(
chatter) 01:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Due to the sources mentioned by Skynxnex.
MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:31, 28 April 2023 (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.