Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RAVE Act

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RAVE Act was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke 07:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Congress passes lots of laws. Tell us why we should care about this particular one. Gamaliel 05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) Note: this was the state of the article at the time the VfD opened. It has since been expanded.

    • The current article needs a little work as it's too POV, but it's no longer worthy of deletion. Change vote to keep. Gamaliel
  • I'll take keep for $200, Alex. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 07:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, add {{stub}} and hope for the best. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 08:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, kind of notable. --fvw* 12:09, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
  • keep notable, will become encylopedic over time - Drstuey 13:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. If laws aren't important enough to warrant their own article, I don't know what is. Wyllium 13:36, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
    • Some laws, of course, but certainly not all of them are notable. Gamaliel
  • Keep. The RAVE act is an example of a moral panic. It extends drug-use penalties in a way that they haven't been extended before. (i.e. to the owner of the premises where the drugs are used) Gazpacho 13:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Please check out the current state of the article; I hope you will agree that while it is not perfect, it is now worth a Keep. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, as with any other bill passed by the US Senate. --Idont Havaname 21:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep current version; excellent rewrite. Can definitely see why it ended up here, though. - RedWordSmith 22:45, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Needs work but deleting is not necessary. - Wikiacc 23:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - furthermore, the original nomination was bogus - David Gerard 20:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • How so? Gamaliel 20:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • VfD should not be used as cleanup (IMHO). The RAVE Act is very noteworthy and encyclopedic. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • You're right, it shouldn't, but I didn't submit it for cleanup, I submitted it for deletion, which is what I thought should happen to the article at the time. Gamaliel 20:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I think that if this is what David Gerard meant, then "bogus" was an ill-chosen adjective; it suggests (to me, at least) that the VfD was not made in good faith, which I found a very puzzling suggestion. As for the article deserving to stick around until someone cleaned it up, you'll note that I was the one who cleaned it up and made it into something, but I would have supported the deletion as well; I believe I can testify that it was no easier starting from the substub that was there than it would have been starting from someone's observation "you know, we could use an article about the RAVE Act." -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • If you can think of a better word than 'bogus' for 'breathtakingly invalid nomination made with carelessness difficult to distinguish from malice even if malice is not directly proven', I'm all ears - David Gerard 10:09, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • You mean it requires "carelessness difficult to distinguish from malice" to think that a 14-word substub is not good enough to be worth keeping? Well, gee, I guess I'd better give up contributing to Wikipedia, then, because I found the nomination perfectly rational and that makes me "careless" too. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • So we can assume malice without any sort of proof now? Guess I'll go delete Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Gamaliel 20:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: Yes, Congress does pass a lot of laws, some of them trivial. But the important ones should all have articles. This one counts. Willmcw 11:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/RAVE_Act&oldid=1138271840"