Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was Weak keep. If it can't be improved, it may be worthy of vfd at a later time. Also try merging. Golbez 18:45, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act

Not notable; article describes a bill that was introduced in Congress but not adopted and is no longer a live proposal. RussBlau 22:05, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete failed legislation proposals —Wahoofive (talk) 03:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete billcruft. Gazpacho 10:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with something appropriate. Simply because a bill failed does not make it non-notable or non-encyclopedic, and it can be of historic value (especially if it's part of an ongoing effort to pass legislation that accomplishes a specific goal). If this is contraindicated by Wikipedia conventions, consider it weak. KickAir8P~ 06:46, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
• Delete, personally I do think bills of law are particularly encyclopedic (unless controversial etc). Radiant_* 07:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge per KickAir8P, seems encyclopedic and part of human knowledge. Kappa 16:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: 1.Notable 35.000 Unique Google hits. 2. Laws are important for the society and therefore notable in an encyclopedia. 3. This bill is/was controversial as ylu can see in the Register article. If it wasn't controversial, it would have passed. --Leopard 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic.--Prem 03:05, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.