Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Speech Fairness Act

Free Speech Fairness Act

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed proposal received no significant RS coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 19:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator, and indeed the article offers no secondary sources at all. Bishonen | talk 17:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC).[reply]

To closing admin: "the article offers no secondary sources" this is not a valid reason for deletion. Per WP:BEFORE it doesn't matter if sources are present in the article. What matters is are there sources available on Google or elsewhere? This !vote should be discounted. – Lionel^(talk) 21:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my BEFORE check comes up with a couple of articles on it, but no reliable source. It would seem that non-enacted law would fall under GNG, and it does not meet those requirements. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are very few available independent sources. This subject could become notable in the future, but for now, the bill is in committee and may very well die on the vine.- Mr X 🖋 20:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this nomination is way, way off the mark. Without much effort I found numerous independent reliable sources with significant coverage establishing notability under WP:GNG. In fact, it took longer to write this comment than to find the sources.

Now, before you complain that some of the sources are partisan, you should read WP:BIASED which explicitly permits partisan sources. Editors !voting here must follow WP:BIASED and not disqualify sources because of a preconceived notion that they are biased. – Lionel^(talk) 21:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]