User talk:Eucharistman
Welcome!
[edit]
|
You're doing a great job with all the new law articles. Have you considered joining Wikiproject Law? A Wikiproject is an association of Wikipedia editors who work together to improve a specific class of articles. Since you obviously have a firm interest in law, you could find alot of support there. In any case, as you create these new articles, you should consider adding {{WikiProject Law|class=stub}} to the article talk pages; this will tag the article for the attention of Wikiproject Law so that their members can help develop the articles.
In any case, welcome to Wikipedia. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Automobile Theft Act
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Automobile Theft Act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. To Fight a Vandal (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]Hello, Eucharistman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
None of your articles contain any sources. They are also uncategorized. In addition, you may consider classifying your articles as stubs. Your articles have been tagged accordingly. It is recommended that before creating new articles, you revisit your existing ones and improve them.
Please read this link, Your First Article.
One thing that makes Wikipedia great is that almost all articles have a consistent look and feel. Please make sure your articles do so as well.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
November 2008
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. All of your articles Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikify
[edit]I know you paid close attention to previous messages I've left, so I'll leave another. Please take a moment to read about wikifying your articles. Thank you. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Legislation
[edit]Thanks for your interest in adding legislation. E.g., 65th United States Congress.
- Here's a formatting note: Please format the date like: November 16, 2008, not 2008-11-16. I know some are like that, but they should be changed, too.
- What is your source for these statutes?
- Can you add public law numbers {{USPL}}, U.S. Statutes at Large {{USStat}}, and/or chapter numbers?
- Put an MDash and a space " — " between the date and the act, not two hyphens.
If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page.—Markles 18:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921
[edit]A tag has been placed on Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Reed-Bulwinkle Act
[edit]A tag has been placed on Reed-Bulwinkle Act requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Reed-Bulwinkle Act of 1948
[edit]A tag has been placed on Reed-Bulwinkle Act of 1948 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates
[edit]Please format dates on legislation in the form: Month Day, Year. For example: November 18, 2008. NOT: 2008-11-18. If some dates are like that when you get to an article, then you should either change the dates or at least don't add new ones the wrong way. Thank you.—Markles 13:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates again
[edit]Please format dates correctly. See 67th United States Congress. —Markles 14:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Please don't revert dates to the wrong format.—Markles 14:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Dates again again
[edit]Haven't you been reading these messages? Please reply here.—Markles 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Naval Reserve Force Act, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Willking1979 (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Chamberlain-Ferris Act
[edit]I have nominated Chamberlain-Ferris Act, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chamberlain-Ferris Act. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Your law stub
[edit]I noticed the number of law-stub you've included. Althought I do not think that they should be deleted, some of them may not be notable enough for inclusion; since I am not an expert in law, I make no claim to know what would be notable and what would be not. At the very least you should write longer and better referenced versions of the articles, with citations. - Skysmith (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources
[edit]What are your sources for all these statutes?!—Markles 11:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Original research
[edit]Based on this comment that you left on Markles (talk · contribs) talk page, the recent spate of law articles you have been contributing constitute original research which is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. It is a shame that your personal circumstances make it impossible for you to publish your book, but please do not use Wikipedia as your personal publisher. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced, original research articles to Wikipedia! Please contact a member of the Wikipedia:Wikiproject Law to get guidance about further articles. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate articles
[edit]Hi Eucharistman -- I've been wikifying and categorizing some of your newly created legal articles, in hopes they can be kept on wikipedia. I would urge you to please check to see if they already exist here. For three examples, you've created:
- Immmigration Act of 1917 (Asiatic Barred Zone Act)
- Flood Control Act of 1917 (Ransdell-Humphreys Act)
- Coinage Act of 1873 (Crime of '73)
All of which I've redirected to existing, and more comprehensive articles. --Lockley (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Sources
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
mdash
[edit]Please use a single mdash "—" between dates and Acts. Just one and nothing else. Some keyboards use Option-shift-dash. If yours can't do it, then use {{subst:mdash}}.—Markles 18:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice work, and...
[edit]Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I saw your new articles. Thank you very much for bringing those subjects to Wikipedia -- you are helping to strengthen the site's content. If I could make a small suggestion: it may help if you could include references and/or external links with the articles when they are put online. This will help our readers if they are interested in pursuing the subject further. Be well, and keep up the fine work!
Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!=)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Speedy deletion of 2nd Liberty Loan Act
[edit]A tag has been placed on 2nd Liberty Loan Act, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008
[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 3rd Liberty Loan Act, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 14:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I can only agree with Burhan Ahmed's request for references. Even worse, this series of articles lacks some very basic information such as dates. When were these acts written/signed/enacted/whatever? As a negative example, 2nd Liberty Loan Act provides next to no context. I'd guess that the act is concerned with WWI war funding, but it might just as well be WWII or even peacetime legislation. I'm no expert on American legislation (and the article doesn't even say it's American, though the amounts in $ suggest that), but I wouldn't even have the faintest idea on where to look for that missing context. Yours, Huon (talk) 15:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Phelen? Phelan?
[edit]I've looked at Phelen Act of 1920, and I wonder whether you've got the name right? It was supposedly instigated by James D. Phelan (who you don't link). Could you please check that you've got the name right, and use "Move" if not.
I'd also support the various comments above: there are no prizes for number of articles created, it's better to create a few well-crafted articles which have sources, links, context, explain the date and country of the legislation in the text of the article, etc, rather than create many articles of unsourced chunks of plain text with key facts missing.
Good luck with WikiPedia - it takes a while to get accustomed to how to do things, but you might do better to concentrate on polishing up a few articles rather than creating vast numbers of them. PamD (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS: The article on James D. Phelan makes no mention of the Act - you might consider adding a mention of it, if his name is attached to it, in either the Senate or Legacy sections. Wikipedia thrives on connections. PamD (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Stock-Raising Homestead Act
[edit]I expanded upon Stock-Raising Homestead Act here. Almafeta (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Too many Acts, too little information
[edit]I've just come across Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act while stub-sorting, and I see that you have created many similar minimal stubs. Your version did not tell us what country's legislature the Act is in, nor give any indication of date, nor attempt to link the politicians responsible, and it didn't start with a sentence. You didn't cite any references. Instead of creating so many sub-standard mini-stubs, please take a little longer to create something which complies with Wikipedia's standards. I've upgraded this one article but haven't the stamina to do the lot: please consider doing so yourself, and please don't create any more stubs which are so inadequate. Thanks. PamD (talk) 17:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
What country? When? No links. No sources. Starts with "It". Please improve this substandard stub you have created. PamD (talk) 07:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Copyright issues
[edit]Hello, I've just deleted Judges Act of 1922 as obvious copyright violation of this paper[1] (Please correct me if there is some permission that I am not aware of, in which case it would still be plagiarism) Looking at your creations, I immediately found another one and it also seems that this is possibly a general pattern. So please explain how you create your articles and given that you're around for some time consider this in any case as your only warning not to commit any further copyright violations. Thanks. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The article Agricultural Entry Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Complete lack of sourcing
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Smith-Hayden Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Tavix (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The article Burnt Timber Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Not a notable law; only primary sources (i.e., the law itself) was found after quite some searching. Orphan except for the Congress page that passed it.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
The article Travelling Expenses Publication Activities Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
I did a search and it seems not to be notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
The article Kern Resolution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Covered by a sentence in Paint Creek–Cabin Creek strike of 1912. Does not seem notable enough for a separate article
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Space Basis Act for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Space Basis Act until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Chidgk1 (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Burnett Act moved to draftspace
[edit]An article you recently created, Burnett Act, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Dan arndt (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Burnett Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Fails WP:GNG, lacks any sources or references]]. Has been tagged as such since November 2008 without any improvements or referencing.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The article Timber Export Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Zero sources for 16 years. Current microstub focuses on 1917 US Timber Export Act, for which not enough meaningful coverage was found to justify a standalone article. In fact this is a generic term that is used more frequently to refer to the 1950 US Timber Export Act, as well as similar legislation in other countries (Guyana, New Zealand, Australia, Uganda, etc.). No prejudice if a new article is started on any of these other Timber Export Acts in the future.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The article River and Harbors Act of 1914 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
I did a search and found nothing to show notability
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The article Special Preparedness Fund Act of 1917 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
A search shows that it existed but not that it is notable
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The article Sabath Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No sources cited for 16 years. No sources found verifying the claims made in this article. Fails verification and fails WP:GNG.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The article Road and Trails Fund Act has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
No results on Google Scholar/News. Google Books results are digitized documents from the U.S. government, failing WP:INDEPENDENT.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)