358:. This doesn't need an article by itself, lack of notability. This is no more notable than me suggesting to my state congressman that there should be a state amendment, then making an article about it on Knowledge (XXG). If, in fact, it has been "widely discussed" (as pointed out by an above poster), then such links should be provided in the article. As it stands, the only reference on the page which mentions it is an article written by Barnett himself.
531:.) It seems to be a pretty widespread Tea Party idea which has been adopted by some state and federal politicians. But I'm not sure that that makes the rest of Barnett's "Bill of Federalism" notable, since the rest of it doesn't seem to have garnered similar attention (most of the press coverage of the Repeal Amendment doesn't mention it). So... perhaps create a substantive article to replace the redirect at
222:. Barnett himself is obviously notable (full professor, publishes regularly in peer-reviewed journals, well-known in libertarian political circles, etc.), but the more difficult question is whether the proposal itself has standalone notability. He seems to have written about it in some high-profile media outlets - including
324:
been introduced as bills in state legislatures. This is not just one law professor's proposal, but a set of proposals that have been widely discussed, critiqued, and expanded in the print media and blogosphere and among political activists and politicians. A Google search for "Bill of
Federalism" in
240:
In short, I'd say the project is notable enough to be mentioned in the article on
Barnett, but it isn't (as far as I can tell) notable enough to merit a standalone article, or this amount of detail. However, I'll change to a keep if someone unearths some substantial coverage of the proposals, either
390:
First of all, "Bill of
Federalism" gets about 3200 hits, not 79,000 (when I just checked it a moment ago - and some of these are about something else, a "federalism bill" from 2002 comes up). Secondly, I still wouldn't be that convinced of its notability. Because its gotten out of one state house
230:
in the Wall Street
Journal - but I can't find much in the way of independent third-party coverage, other than the John Birch Society (hardly a reputable source) critiquing the proposal. The article cites various reported cases and law journal articles in explaining the constitutional background and
391:
committee and has support from a governor, doesn't make it notable enough to be an article separate from the person who started it. Keep in mind, it would take 3/4 of ALL 50 states for it to be part of the
Constitution. At this point, it seems highly unlikely.
419:
Lots of things are debated by the public. That doesn't make them notable or worthy of a
Knowledge (XXG) article. However, none of the responders to this discussion are saying the topic should disappear, rather it should be included in Barnett's article.
194:
Vanity article, non-notable subject. Appears to be a summary of an article/proposal by a college professor on how he would like to see the US Constitution amended. None of the citations except one mention the "Bill of
Federalism" itself. The
263:, but not the merge. Currently, although well done, this reads too much like a piece promoting the "Bill of Federalism". Providing a citation to a statement by Randy Barnett containing the text of the "Bill of Federalism" in the
163:
447:
231:
purpose of
Barnett's proposal, but none of these citations are about the proposal itself, and they therefore have no bearing on whether it is notable. On a related point, much of the current article is
528:
286:
makes sense to me. Barnett is notable and his ideas have gotten a lot of press, but until the amendments actually get introduced in
Congress or something, they're just a professor's ideas.
124:
157:
499:
376:
Seems like a rationale for improving the article rather than redirecting it, as I suppose the redirect will radically reduce the amount of content on the topic.--
223:
473:
329:
magazine, the Volokh
Conspiracy, Tea Party sites, etc. The Repeal Amendment, which is the most widely discussed component of the proposals, has garnered over
405:
Is it for us to judge whether the amendment is likely to be enacted? If it is part of public debate, shouldn't it be included here on that ground alone?--
97:
92:
101:
84:
337:
17:
178:
145:
600:
36:
334:
139:
235:, and reads like the author's own reflection on American constitutional jurisprudence and the problems therewith.
585:
560:
539:
514:
488:
462:
429:
414:
400:
385:
367:
348:
310:
290:
276:
245:
208:
66:
599:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
135:
59:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
333:
hits on Google and has been publicly supported by prominent politicians, including the governor of Virginia,
306:
88:
185:
577:
556:
241:
in the media or in the peer-reviewed academic literature, which wasn't written by Barnett himself.
171:
52:
581:
302:
80:
72:
151:
551:. Seems notable enough for inclusion there, but not yet notable enough for a spinout article.
510:
484:
458:
425:
410:
396:
381:
363:
344:
204:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
532:
524:
272:
536:
256:
242:
227:
232:
573:
552:
287:
569:
548:
264:
260:
219:
47:
506:
480:
454:
421:
406:
392:
377:
359:
340:
200:
118:
268:
301:
seems to be the best solution to what is essentially a vanity article.
196:
593:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
529:
List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution
448:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
523:- As per Jsorens' remarks above, it's pretty clear that the
527:
is notable in itself. (That page currently redirects to
535:, and add some of the relevant sourced material there?
114:
110:
106:
170:
214:Hmmm. This is a tough one, but I'm leaning towards
184:
336:and has passed at least one state house committee.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
603:). No further edits should be made to this page.
500:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
494:
468:
442:
498:: This debate has been included in the
474:list of Law-related deletion discussions
472:: This debate has been included in the
446:: This debate has been included in the
199:has been a dead link since July 2010.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
325:quotes yields 3,230 hits, including
24:
1:
197:official website for the bill
586:04:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
561:16:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
540:21:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
515:00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
489:00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
463:00:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
430:19:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
415:15:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
401:20:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
386:20:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
368:00:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
349:19:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
311:19:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
291:17:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
277:16:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
246:16:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
209:14:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
67:15:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
620:
267:article should suffice. --
596:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
259:about the redirect to
572:for reason stated by
566:Merge and Redirect
545:Merge and Redirect
299:Merge and redirect
284:Merge and redirect
216:merge and redirect
81:Bill of Federalism
73:Bill of Federalism
44:The result was
517:
503:
491:
477:
465:
451:
320:: The amendments
233:original research
611:
598:
533:Repeal Amendment
525:Repeal Amendment
504:
478:
452:
189:
188:
174:
122:
104:
62:
34:
619:
618:
614:
613:
612:
610:
609:
608:
607:
601:deletion review
594:
131:
95:
79:
76:
60:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
617:
615:
606:
605:
589:
588:
563:
542:
518:
492:
466:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
388:
371:
370:
352:
351:
314:
313:
294:
293:
280:
279:
249:
248:
237:
236:
226:in Forbes and
192:
191:
128:
75:
70:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
616:
604:
602:
597:
591:
590:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:Randy Barnett
567:
564:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:Randy Barnett
546:
543:
541:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
516:
512:
508:
501:
497:
493:
490:
486:
482:
475:
471:
467:
464:
460:
456:
449:
445:
441:
440:
431:
427:
423:
418:
417:
416:
412:
408:
404:
403:
402:
398:
394:
389:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
353:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
332:
328:
323:
319:
316:
315:
312:
308:
304:
303:ThatOtherMike
300:
296:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
265:Randy Barnett
262:
261:Randy Barnett
258:
255:I agree with
254:
251:
250:
247:
244:
239:
238:
234:
229:
225:
221:
220:Randy Barnett
217:
213:
212:
211:
210:
206:
202:
198:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
63:
56:
55:
50:
49:
48:Randy Barnett
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
595:
592:
565:
544:
520:
495:
469:
443:
355:
330:
326:
321:
317:
298:
283:
252:
224:this article
215:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
57:
53:
46:redirect to
45:
43:
31:
28:
158:free images
574:Edward321
553:Edward321
507:• Gene93k
481:• Gene93k
455:• Gene93k
288:Coemgenus
578:Copritch
356:Redirect
297:Agreed.
253:Redirect
228:this one
125:View log
521:Comment
422:Rillian
407:Jsorens
393:Squad51
378:Jsorens
360:Squad51
341:Jsorens
201:Rillian
164:WP refs
152:scholar
98:protect
93:history
537:Walton
331:79,000
327:Forbes
269:Bejnar
257:Walton
243:Walton
136:Google
102:delete
179:JSTOR
140:books
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
582:talk
557:talk
511:talk
496:Note
485:talk
470:Note
459:talk
444:Note
426:talk
411:talk
397:talk
382:talk
364:talk
345:talk
322:have
318:Keep
307:talk
273:talk
205:talk
172:FENS
146:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
61:Talk
568:to
547:to
505:--
479:--
453:--
218:to
186:TWL
123:– (
584:)
576:.
559:)
513:)
502:.
487:)
476:.
461:)
450:.
428:)
413:)
399:)
384:)
366:)
347:)
339:--
309:)
275:)
207:)
166:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
54:NW
51:.
580:(
555:(
509:(
483:(
457:(
424:(
409:(
395:(
380:(
362:(
343:(
305:(
271:(
203:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
121:)
83:(
64:)
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.