Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act

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. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and is just a proposal not an act. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep- It's a significant bill tabled as a proposal to be an act, and there are plenty on Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_legislation_of_the_115th_United_States_Congress. However, it is particularly significant from a legal/political/social media/Technology viewpoint because it advocates the recording the social media, of a president, in the same way Governmental Hansard or parliamentary minutes are recorded. It's the first legislation in the world proposed to do this. From a social media/telecommunications point of view, and from a governmental point of view, this is a signification proposal. It has been covered by technology sites for the tech angle (Mashable and Ars Technica) as well as many RS including the The Guardian, Washington Post, Forbes, Reuters, etc. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There is already significant coverage, so it passes WP:GNG. Furthermore, merging it with the related Presidential Records Act would be possible alternative for deletion. Ceosad (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes GNG due to the coverage at the very minimum. Personally, I think it's good to err on the side of caution toward deleting national-level legislation unless lack of notability is clear. South Nashua (talk) 13:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  FITINDIA  13:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 14:23, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SkyWarrior 14:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Reuters, The Washington Post, and CNN. In addition, legislation in United States Congress means lasting significance, especially combined with the source coverage. Sagecandor (talk) 14:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Too soon to say. If the act passes then I'd say keep. If the act fails in a sustained blaze of widely covered argument then also maybe keep. If not, it looks like a minor stunt with some minor notability. In that case it might deserve a mention in an article but not one of its own. The facts that will decide whether this is more than a stunt are not yet in. I say we wait and see. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:34, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep - There ere dozens of reputable sources from around the world that have covered this subject. It easily meets WP:GNG.It is a bill, the common name of which includes the word "act", not "proposal".- MrX 18:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep Clearly passes GNG, and as a proposal formally introduced into a national legislature, would deserve a presumption of notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not happy with this being a snow result. There is a discussion to be had, we just don't seem to be having it. As MrX says, this is a bill, not an act, until it is passed into law and a bill is a proposal for an act. Do we really cover all proposed legislation of this type in all countries? How may such bills go before the world's various national assemblies? And how many of those do we cover even after they are passed into law, which this one might even not be? If the answer is "not a great proportion" then why is this a worthy exception? Because it has significant (and I think it has to be serious to be significant) coverage or just because the media thinks this is a hilarious stunt to fill a little space with? If it really is the first, and if we would be covering it even without it having a comedy name, then fair enough but if it is the later then we have to put aside our love of a good joke at the orange overlord's expense and let it go for the good of Wikipedia. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer here is intrinsic to the nature of the bill. This particular bill is the first proposed legislation in the world to move private social media of the leader of a national government into offcial communication status, including establishing rules that it can't be deleted. It's important in a beuraucratic sense, it's important in terms of social media, electronic communication - and in terms of information access. In ways, whether it was to do with Trump, or any other national leader, it would still be an important piece of legislation, and that is no doubt why it has been covered by Reuters, Washington post, Forbes.. as well as various technology Journals etc. The fact that it is a bill is not important, the important thing is its' the first legislation to propose this. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment wait, too soon to decide either way. If it becomes law, keep, if it does not redirect to Mike Quigley (politician), and add a short paragraph to that article.--KTo288 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have any policy that says a bill has to become a law before being the subject of an article. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was created before it ever became law, because it was notable before it was signed into law. Email Privacy Act is still not a law, and may never become one, but it passes WP:GNG.- MrX 16:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Even if it doesn't become law, this article will be an important research tool for historians for decades to come. RobertLovesPi (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2017 (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.