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 keep per consensus. AfD is not a place for editorial decisions, this would have been better suited to a discussion on the article's talk page. Arkyan • ^(talk) 21:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was an attempt I made to try to increase the incredibly poor coverage of our article on the USA PATRIOT Act. However, I'm listing on AFD due to this being of higher quality than the main article, which I strongly doubt anyone will improve upon. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: uh, wouldn't it be better to nominate all 10 of these in one fell swoop, instead of 10 separate nominations? Krimpet (talk/review) 06:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let them rise or fall on their own merits. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • question - are we going to start pruning a few amendments from the bill of rights? i mentioned WP:POINT in another 'afd.' so i'm going to suggest that if you feel strongly that an article need be of higher quality, why not contribute? the_undertow ^talk 08:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and de-point your commentary. I would keep them all anyway, but what is the point of your nomination? Of course they need work, and I'm sure they are highly contentious, but they also -- along with the main article -- have far better articles than the vast majority of American or international laws do. -- phoebe/(talk) 08:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta bu shi da yu is actually asserting that the USA PATRIOT Act article is of lessor caliber than its components. Ta bu shi da yu does not mention anything about the merit of each Title in question. the_undertow ^talk 08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Article doesn't fall under any category for deletion reasons. This opinion is the same for the other Titles nominated for deletion below. -- GJD 12:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep them all I'm baffled by the reasoning behind this nomination... if you want the main USA PATRIOT Act article improved then do it yourself or just ask other people to help. A lot of editors have contributed to the Title sub-articles apart from the creator, and high quality is not a reason for deletion. --Canley 12:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep All since nomination doesn't give a comprehensible reason to delete. AndyJones 12:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to USA PATRIOT Act 132.205.44.134 23:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are no reasons to delete. A merger would make the article way too long. That article would have to be split off again, per WP:SUMMARY, and we'd be back at the beginning. If the main article needs improvement, content from these articles should be summarized there. Will someone do it as a result of this AFD? Maybe, maybe not, or maybe not immediately, but in any case these are good articles which should be kept and the quality of the parent article does not afflict the child articles. — coelacan — 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all articles - I am not qualified to commetn on content, but the main article is already quite long enough. However, the main article looks unsatisfactory. The separate articles need to be better linked to the main one, and some one will need to watch that additonal material is added (where appropriate) to the sub-articles, rather than in a parallel expansion of the main one. This is best done by the use of a 'main' template, at the beginning of each division of the main article. Peterkingiron 16:59, 22 April 2007 (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.