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 redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul#Sound money. The history is not deleted if someone wants to merge some of it. Mr.Z-man 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act[edit]

Proposed U.S. federal legislation for which WP:RS coverage is lacking. Written and introduced by Ron Paul in multiple congresses, sent to committee and not heard from again. Restored from a CSD#G5 deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul#sound money. Pouring through ghits, while I see activity on blogs and other unreliable sites, I can't find any reliable sources that actually went and reported on it. A topic does not become notable merely by being uttered by a notable individual, and if there is nothing to say about it that wasn't uttered by Paul himself, then an external link to the bill is sufficient. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable sources seem to be available. here, www.naturalnews.com/024486.html ^{[unreliable fringe source?]} here], here and here. SunCreator (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of those are reliable sources. In order:

The govtrack site is nothing more than a host for the text of the bill itself. It contains zero commentary on it.
Natural news, while it may appear to be a news source, is actually promoting the bill, if you read the last section.
Connietalk is also promoting the bill.
Opencongress, like govtrack, is just hosting the text of the bill, but also provides links to blog coverage. From that website, actually, "We are not currently finding any news articles on this topic..."'

Someguy1221 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is it that the original link to loc.gov the website of The Library of Congress, the de facto national library of the United States is somehow not a reliable source? SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Databases/trackers can satisfy WP:V but not WP:Notability. Reliable source coverage needs to be non-trivial. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N requires independent coverage of the issue. the LOC text of the bill or a copy of the federal register don't count. We don't need articles on every bit of legislation that Ron Paul has introduced, not least of all the ones that have 0% chance of passing. Protonk (talk) 01:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ [1] is a (biased) RS here. I also think that the naturalnews article counts. Sure it's an editorial, but that doesn't mean it can't be an RS. It's a horrible idea that won't happen, but that doesn't mean it's not notable Hobit (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further thought, merge/redirect to List of legislation sponsored by Ron Paul. That it (barely) meets WP:N is great and all, but it's got a good home there. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur; merge or redirect. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (as nominator). Merge/Redirect sounds good to me. The bill is not notable on its own, but it has a place to go. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2008 (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.