Deletion of Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is Act

Comment: or '''Summarize, Merge, and Redirect to John B. T. Campbell III'''; the first piece of legislation with the name of the subject was introduced by Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky in 1994, however it only received one |reliable source from a |news organization. The next time it came up was in 2008, when it was introduced by John B. T. Campbell III, who introduced it again when a new Congress was formed in 2011. The legislation that was introduced by Campbell, IMHO has received |significant coverage from multiple |non-primary reliable sources, both news and non news. Therefore, the subject is notable, IMHO. AfD is not a substitute for |additional work. However, if there is a consensus that the subject is not notable, the content can be summarized, and merged into a section about Campbell, and a redirect left in the articlespace
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NEWSORG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:PRIMARY||WP:NOTCLEANUP)

Comment: The cited sources are not  for news.  They are blog or opinion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per nom. & . Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: This is just additional harassment from Rich, Rubin and SPECIFICO... Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive786#User:Xerographica.  The information is factual and is obviously notable to the congresspeople who sponsored and co-sponsored it.  Right now the argument is that newspaper editors are somehow more qualified than congresspeople when it comes to determining notability.  Regarding the slippery slope argument... I think it's pretty absurd to worry about editors making the effort to create an entry for every 10,000 bills introduced.  And if they did...so what?  Why not have a record of all the laws that congresspeople have tried to pass?  How is that unencyclopedic?  Is the concern that 10,000 entries is going to take up a lot of space on the hard drive?  If so, anybody with even the slightest knowledge of space constraints would appreciate how absurd such a concern is.  |Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: surely  applies here. A flash-in-the-pan bill that does not become an act but is momentarily reported for its silliness - is not encyclopedic content, however much anyone may find it amusing to suggest it is so. Newspapers have to fill columns and even the best are not averse to having brief funny items, but such coverage absolutely doesn't meet the GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS)