Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telephone Records and Privacy Protection 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The result was Result: Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn and no delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act[edit]

This is a summary of what seems to be a pretty minor piece of US legislation. To my mind, it is bordering on falling foul of Wikipedia is not a directory / indiscriminate collection of information. But...

Let me say that this is a very tentative AfD! I have no idea if there is any form of precedent on this sort of article, or indeed whether the article is acceptable or not. I've tried to work it out, but can't really find a definitive answer. The closest I've come is the partial list of notable United States federal legislation, and I don't believe that this act is notable. Anyhow, I will gladly withdraw this nomination if I'm in the wrong.

If anyone can point me to a better way of establishing whether articles like this are generally OK or not, please do let me know! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Close Category:United States federal communications legislation --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is referenced to the AP story about Bush signing it. As a newly enacted law (signed Jan 13, 2007) to criminalize pretexting, passed 409 to 0 in the US House of Representatives, it addresses a common practice of fraudulently obtaining the phone records of others. Technically, wouldn't publication in the Congressional Record and the Federal Register furnish the additional "independent, verifiable, reliable" sources? Sorry for the crystal ball, but let's give prosecutors a chance to prosecute pretexters rather than deleting the article as soon as the law is passed. Edison 19:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although it should be furnished with sources (which are plentiful). (No, government publication of its own laws isn't really independent, Edison.) It's a significant privacy-related bill, connected with last year's acquisition of Gen. Wesley Clark's phone records by a blog (with his permission, and to his surprise).[1] --Dhartung | Talk 19:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination and recommend speedy keep. It's now clear to me that there are plenty of these on Wikipedia. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:38, 17 January 2007 (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.