Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The IDPPPA (S.3728)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. Discarded a !vote from a banned sock - consensus otherwise is to delete Black Kite (t) (c) 00:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IDPPPA (S.3728)

[edit]
The IDPPPA (S.3728) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The IDPPPA (S.3728) is the "The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act", non-notable proposed legislation that has not even made it out of committee and has no hope of becoming law. There is one month left in the current congress. To become law, this bill would have to 1) get out of the Senate committee; 2) be brought to a vote in the Senate; 3) passed in the Senate; 4) be sent to the House; 5) be harmonized with HR 2196, which is also stuck in committee; 6) be brought to a vote in the House; 7) get passed in the House; 8) in all likelihood, be subjected to a conference where the differences between the House and Senate bills are worked out; 9) bring the hammered-out bill to a vote in the House; 10) pass in the House; 11) bring the bill to a vote in the Senate; 12) pass in the Senate -- all in a lame-duck Congress in its last month.

I PRODded ([1]). After some edits that did not address notability ([2]), the PROD was declined by the article's principle editor, with no reason given ([3]).

This is the latest in a series of bills to provide for design protection, going back to at least the disco era (S 1361 was introduce in the 93rd Congress in 1973, during the Nixon administration) and consistently failing. Other similar failed bills include:

  • 93rd Congress: S 1361, HR 8186, HR 14922, HR 15522
  • 94th Congress: HR 2223, S 22 (Title I of S.22 turned into the 1976 Copyright Act, but only after the conference committee sliced off Title II, the Design Protection Act of 1975);
  • 96th Congress: HR 2706, HR 4530;
  • 97th Congress: HR 20;
  • 98th Congress: HR 2985;
  • 99th Congress: HR 1900, HR 3776;
  • 100th Congress: HR 1179, S 791;
  • 101st Congress: HR 902, HR 3017, HR3499;
  • 102nd Congress: HR 1790;
  • 105th Congress: HR 2281 (this bill later mutated into the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act that is now Title V of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998; its generalized design protection provisions went nowhere);
  • 109th Congress: HR 5005;
  • 110th Congress: HR 2033, S 1957;
  • 111th (current) Congress: H 2196 and S3728.

The article also needs cleanup and renaming if kept; but my nomination is based on lack of notability, not those issues (which could be fixed). TJRC (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions... First, why do you believe it's notable? That's the ultimate question to determine whether to keep, but you don't indicate how you reach that conclusion. Do you believe that it's more notable than the other couple dozen or so failed bills? If so, what is different about this one? Or so you believe that all of the bills are notable and each ought to have an article, despite never having been enacted? In which case, what is different about these bills from the other thousands of bills that are never enacted?
Second, what do you mean when you say it's notable "in the current landscape of IP cases"? Are you suggesting that it's notable right now, but not permanently? That suggests mere newsworthiness, and runs counter to both WP:NOTNEWS (most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion) and WP:NTEMP (notability is not temporary).
Also, not to nitpick too much, but this isn't an "IP case" at all; it's proposed legislation. If it were an actual litigated case construing actual enacted legislation, it would be much more likely to be deemed notable. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (albeit, with a more informative title). All proposed legislation is notable. Indeed, given the coercive nature of the enforcement of legislation, it is obvious that all legislation (and, by implication, all proposed legislation) is notable. Even if the Bill is doomed to failure, as the nominator believes, the article (and the Bill) are notable for their insight into the work of elected representatives. I would be happy to see Wikipaedia articles on all legislative Bills, ("Democracy in action"), from all representative Democracies, regardless of whether they are passed or rejected. Uncensored Kiwi Kiss 12:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the idea that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. Many draft Bills are written but never even debated, let along enacted; many attract little comment and have no lasting impact, which are the kind of criteria we noramlyl use to judge notability.... The Land (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, strongly disagree that all proposed legislation is inherently notable. There have been over 4000 bills in the Senate alone this Congress; another 6000 or so in the House. Can one really argue with a straight face that 10,000 bills per Congress are notable, within the meaning of Wikipedia's notability guidelines? I'm not saying it's a bad idea to track proposed bills; but that's not the role of an encyclopedia, and existing resources already do that. See THOMAS ([4]), GovTrack ([5]) and OpenCongress ([6]) for a few examples. TJRC (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would strongly disagree with any argument that all legislation of a particular status (proposed, enacted, drafted, whatever) is inherently notable or nonnotable. To decide on notability we really need to see substantial coverage from third parties; some items of legislation will have it and some won't. In this case, there seem to be enough ([7], [8], [9] etc) to satisfy the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that coverage is simply because it's currently in the news, and WP:NOTNEWS; and notability is not temporary. Three weeks from now, this bill will be just one more unenacted design bill, like all the other unenacted design bills before it, will no longer be newsworthy and no longer be covered in the news. This is the distinction between mere newsworthiness and notability. TJRC (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - The Senate yesterday adjourned its final session of the 111th Congress, without bringing the bill to a vote. Until then, it was at least theoretically possible (although practically impossible) that it could go through all the hurdles described above and get enacted. But now, it's officially just one more dead design protection bill on a very large pile. TJRC (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Article states that this proposed bill got killed, never passed into law. So it's completely dead and pointless info. WP is not a repository for proposed legislation. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:26, 24 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_IDPPPA_(S.3728)&oldid=1141942904"