Deletion of List of legislators who support SOPA or PIPA

Comment: and '''rewrite with only secondary sources that make analysis of the situation'''. , how does this meet the |notability guideline on stand-alone lists? Where are the reliable sources making lists of ''specific legislators'' supporting or opposing SOPA and treating them as a group? Take for example http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57359306-261/momentum-shift-sopa-pipa-opponents-now-in-drivers-seat/ this CNET article, treats the companies as supporting/opposing groups. But only lists one group of six senators as a group, and only because they wrote together a letter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:NOTESAL)

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE   Who does and does not support these bills is not encyclopedic. Will we maintain this 20 years in the future? Will we care
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTWHOSWHO||WP:NOTNEWSPAPER)

Comment: It is in my opinion it is soapbox  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:INDISCRIMINATE#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion and reflects a point of view . not in its content but its timing and possible future repercussions and that in some instance those repercussions might cause real harm to others. The examples I have provided are not hyperbole as I am confident most will agree. I suppose in such instances one must decide whom is objective and whom is not, "Politicsislife". My decision to delete the article was not based or bias by politics but concern for others. Such "hit lists" are unwise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)

Comment: Ed originally said "I can't find a similar page for any ''other'' bill" (emphasis added). Funnyfarm got him to redact that statement by citing... another article about SOPA. I don't think that should count as legitimizing this article, completely aside from , because all that says is that people feel strongly enough about SOPA to create ''two'' articles naming its proponents
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS)

Comment: Basically an overtly politically-oriented hitlist of people who have supported (or opposed, see comment below) the two controversial bills, not to mention an overtly POV fork. Another example of blindly following  and  without any editorial responsibility or common sense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Clearly  and I am sure that individual representative's support or opposition is verifiable in sufficient es.  In its current state the list/article looks a little "thrown together" and could use some polishing, but that's not a reason to delete it.  And of course, the content of the list is going to change over time, but that's no reason to delete anything either.  And the fact that changes will occur does not mean that the list is indiscriminate, it just means it's incomplete.   would actually seem to argue ''for'' this article's inclusion, as the article is a "collection of information... gathered where care and/or distinctions about the information contained in the collection are made--in a thoughtful manner"  It will evolve, as will every article here, but there's no valid, policy based reason to delete it, IMO.  Arguments citing  or  seem, to me, to be arguing the corollary of —if other bills don't have lists of pro/opponents, this bill shouldn't either.  But just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean it shouldn't.  It just means that nobody has gotten around to creating it yet. :) Finally, merging it back into the articles on the bills themselves, would make those articles unmanageably long.  This is exactly the kind of situation where such data ''should'' be forked off to a stand-alone list article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:POV||WP:UNDUE||WP:OSE)

Comment: I suppose lists of legislators could be appropriate for some pieces of legislation throughout history, but there are hundreds of more controversial pieces of legislation. I'm leaning towards  on this, and I fear that the recentism of it is clouding judgment about notability. Perhaps this should be put into a more distinct prose that talks about the previous supporters who withdrew and other significant supports, but not just a list of legislators. There should be an easy external link to THOMAS that will easily provide readers with the full list
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per . We have a similar article under List of organizations with official stances on the Stop Online Piracy Act. This will be extremely relevent for people who wish to see if their congressman supports the bill
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE)

Comment: per , particularly in light of recent rename and modification (now includes both opponents & supporters). Relevant, notable, neutral & reliably sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LISTPEOPLE)

Comment: under . "It's useful" is '''Wikipedia:USEFUL|not''' a valid reason to keep something. There are lots of bills people care about, and it is not the role of Wikipedia to track which legislator supports every piece of legislation. With hundreds of bills proposed in dozens of legislatures every year, these kinds of lists are completely unsustainable, and it's a terrible idea for Wikipedia to make a singular exception to policy just because this is a hot-button issue for many Wikipedians. Wikipedia is not ballotpedia or On The Issues. Nor is it THOMAS or GovTrack, which are essentially transcribed and reformatted to form this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: per .  We don't do such lists for every, or even any, other proposed or passed laws.  And honestly, there simply is no reason to.   concerns with such a list as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE||WP:POV)