Deletion of Opt Out of Iraq War Act

Comment: Weak delete'' - Rich, you know my thoughts on the genesis of these articles and there's no point re-hashing all that. But I will say that while your statistics about such legislation may well be correct, the standard we need to use is  and so the normal checks for sources need to be done. My impression is that while it has received some coverage, it probably hasn't received enough to pass GNG
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

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: using my google-fu my search for |significant coverage of the subject revealed one |news organization source where the subject is the primary subject of the content and received significant coverage. However the source is from a small published news organization called ''Queens Courier''. Other editors have posted similar articles from other non-major news organizations. Outside of news organizations there are few to nil |non-primary reliable sources which mention the subject. That being said, it is my opinion that the quality of sources do not indicate that the subject is notable per . Perhaps the verified content of this article can be summarized, and merged into the article Criticism of the Iraq War, and a redirect left in its place. Otherwise, the article, IMHO, should be '''deleted
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:NEWSORG||WP:PRIMARY||WP:GNG)

Comment: per nom. & . Clearly fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER||WP:GNG)