Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putback Amendment

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 speedy delete. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putback Amendment

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

Non-notable legislative proposal for Illinois that hasn't received significant coverage in the media. Fences&Windows 00:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First two references aren't reliable and independent. The Tribune piece is an opinion piece and so isn't really helpful to establish anything beyond what the journalist said in the opinion piece. Also it only has a trivial passing mention therein. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This proposal doesn't seem to have advanced to the initiative stage. The Proquest newspaper archive shows no mention of it. Will Beback talk 02:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amendment should probably need to qualify for the ballot before it is considered notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been the subject of a great deal of non-trivial news coverage.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cites only one item of news coverage in mainstream media (WCIA television), and Google News finds only that one item plus one blog entry. If this amendment makes it to the ballot, I'm sure there will be plenty of news coverage then and the article can be re-created. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Metro90 on this one. It's interesting, it's intriguing... but it's not on the ballot. Frankly, I'll be surprised if they find 278,000 or 500,000 people who would sign, since it calls for so many different things (including getting rid of the state House and Senate in favor of a unicameral state legislature) that most people would not consider to be a pressing need. I see this as no different than someone proposing a vote on whether the Chicago area should separate from the rest of Illinois. Mandsford (talk) 14:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5: page created on 2009-12-10 by sockpuppet of User:JohnBambenek in violation of indefinite ban on 2007-03-04. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/JohnBambenek. See also User:CharlesJohnson22/JohnBambenek while it still exists: created by same sockpuppet and claims he "is the principal author of the Putback Amendment, and amendment to the Constitution of the State of Illinois to reform the Illinois General Assembly." And obviously, completely non-neutral, unsupported, self-promotional article with no evidence of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G5. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 18 December 2009 (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.