362:, partially because the WP reference makes it stand out, but I'd probably be inclined to vote keep even aside from that. I do recommend exclusion of Tony's name and user name from the article, though, both to avoid the potential appearance of vanity and in accordance with the general idea of the project as a collective work.
148:- Inclusion and not exclusion is the key point here. I have seen many fake Knowledge articles on this website that have survived the test of time. Many of them look like they were practical jokes. You should spend your time hunting those articles and focusing less on such a valid article as this one. --
376:
I believe the article is significant, and the mention of
Knowledge should be left in. Lots of people are discussing the validity of Knowledge, and whether or not it should be referenced for papers/articles, etc.; if this is indeed the first bill to reference Knowledge, that's notable. By the way, I
259:- an excellent article about a relevant topic. The bill is the world's first legislative act to cite Knowledge, and if that isn't encyclopedic (and historic), I don't know what is. I think some folks the deletionist bandwagon had better look for something better to do.
198:
We need more well researched credible articles not fewer. Why this would be considered for deletion is beyond me. Also I want to be able to research US laws on wikipedia, not to get lawyerese about them, but to find out details like the ones in this
399:- but, more so for the WP angle the the post office angel. I think post office entries should, generally, be put under that person's page, but I could be swayed the other way on that issue with good arguments. Huzzah, Tony!--
319:. Normally this would be a pretty marginal topic, but given that it is a first (and especially because it is a first regarding Knowledge!) it raises its notability quotient above other such bills.
291:. Factual, sourced, well researched record of a legislative act that is of historical interest aside from WP connection. Also the first legislative act to cite Knowledge. Definite keeper.
59:
231:
A law passed by the US congress is notable and the fact that it has a wikipedia connection is even better. The article is well researched and written and belongs in this encyclopedia.--
385:- Any bill that passes is fair game for inclusion here. I would object if the bill did not pass though (few proposed bills are notable on their own until/if they get passed). --
441:- This isn't just of interest to us. That a proposed law cited Knowledge would be an interesting news item in most sources, we shouldn't bend over backwards to avoid it here.
184:- Apart from the fact that it is just pretty dang cool that text written by Tony the Marine was used on a bill before congress, freedom of information is pretty important.
459:
445:
431:
417:
403:
389:
366:
352:
331:
309:
295:
281:
263:
249:
235:
221:
203:
188:
174:
152:
138:
126:
110:
93:
77:
52:
89:
What makes this bill notable is that it is the first bill in history that contains an article from
Knowledge. This also gives our Pedia some degree of credibility.
134:
First of all, I'm an inclusionist. Second of all, I agree with Tony is his assertion of this article's notability. Thirdly, the article is well researched. -
305:. Well written article about a marginal topic. I really don't want to see this cited as justification for lots of articles on bills to name a post office.-
170:
point. There are so many wothless articles around wikipedia and I don't get why u tag for deletion one that is well researched and writen.
377:
find this reference disturbing; Knowledge is a great place to learn, but a terrible place to cite. CalebNoble 03:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
65:
No way is every minor bill passed by
Congress that, in its entirety, names a building after someone notable. The self-reference only
413:- Tony, you're getting famous! Kidding aside, I think this is a relevant article to have. It is an historic moment for Knowledge!
213:
per Marine 69-71, if it's an article about a real law (there are many on wikipedia). I don't see any harm in the fact that it's a
427:- This is an important historical event in Knowledge. The credibity gained should be celebrated by every writer in Knowledge.
341:
I put on on DYK for precisely the reasons identified by Tony the Marine. Don't think it is vain or overly self-referential. --
17:
474:
348:
36:
473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
107:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
342:
74:
49:
400:
428:
414:
325:
185:
306:
90:
70:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
274:
260:
442:
386:
278:
246:
232:
363:
135:
456:
320:
200:
167:
149:
292:
123:
171:
163:
122:- Bills introduced into the US Congress and passed into law are notable per se.
217:
bill. Knowledge is not paper. But the article could use better references. --
218:
245:- well written article, and bill cites the Wiki. Should remain. --
467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
60:
Dr. Jose Celso
Barbosa Post Office Building Designation Act
166:
17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Also would like to stress
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
477:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
69:the article - not makes it more notable.
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
136:FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed
277:from Marine 69-71's part. --
460:03:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
446:21:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
432:20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
418:19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
404:04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
390:14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
367:03:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
353:00:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
332:23:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
310:23:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
296:23:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
282:23:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
264:21:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
250:21:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
236:19:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
222:19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
204:18:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
189:17:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
175:17:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
153:17:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
139:16:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
127:15:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
111:16:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
94:15:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
78:15:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
53:07:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
494:
470:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
162:Per all above comments.
102:I'm forced to agree.
455:as per AnonEMouse.
351:
328:
257:Emphatically KEEP
485:
472:
347:
326:
50:SynergeticMaggot
34:
493:
492:
488:
487:
486:
484:
483:
482:
481:
475:deletion review
468:
91:Tony the Marine
63:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
491:
489:
480:
479:
463:
462:
449:
448:
435:
434:
429:Antonio Martin
421:
420:
407:
406:
401:DavidShankBone
393:
392:
379:
378:
370:
369:
356:
355:
335:
334:
313:
312:
299:
298:
285:
284:
273:. Sounds like
267:
266:
253:
252:
239:
238:
225:
224:
207:
206:
192:
191:
178:
177:
156:
155:
142:
141:
129:
116:
115:
114:
113:
97:
96:
82:
62:
57:
55:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
490:
478:
476:
471:
465:
464:
461:
458:
454:
451:
450:
447:
444:
440:
437:
436:
433:
430:
426:
423:
422:
419:
416:
415:Smylere Snape
412:
409:
408:
405:
402:
398:
395:
394:
391:
388:
384:
381:
380:
375:
372:
371:
368:
365:
361:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
345:
340:
337:
336:
333:
330:
329:
322:
318:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
301:
300:
297:
294:
290:
287:
286:
283:
280:
276:
272:
269:
268:
265:
262:
258:
255:
254:
251:
248:
244:
241:
240:
237:
234:
230:
227:
226:
223:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
205:
202:
197:
194:
193:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
158:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
121:
118:
117:
112:
109:
105:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
92:
88:
85:
84:
83:
80:
79:
76:
72:
68:
61:
58:
56:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
469:
466:
452:
438:
424:
410:
396:
382:
373:
359:
343:
338:
324:
316:
302:
288:
270:
261:David Cannon
256:
242:
228:
214:
210:
195:
181:
159:
145:
131:
119:
103:
86:
81:
71:zafiroblue05
66:
64:
45:
43:
31:
28:
425:Speedy Keep
411:Strong Keep
397:Strong Keep
360:Strong keep
289:Strong keep
196:Strong Keep
87:Strong Keep
443:AnonEMouse
279:Abu Badali
247:Murcielago
233:Looper5920
364:Everyking
303:Weak keep
275:WP:VANITY
457:Rbraunwa
321:Grutness
201:Lkinkade
199:article.
168:XLR8TION
150:XLR8TION
307:gadfium
293:SWAdair
124:John254
271:Delete
172:Nnfolz
164:Nnfolz
344:Samir
215:minor
186:Rmt2m
67:harms
16:<
453:Keep
439:Keep
383:Keep
374:Keep
349:धर्म
339:Keep
327:wha?
317:Keep
243:Keep
229:Keep
211:Keep
182:Keep
160:Keep
146:Keep
132:Keep
120:Keep
104:Keep
75:Talk
46:Keep
387:mav
323:...
219:Qyd
48:.
108:DS
106:.
73:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.