Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luce–Celler Act of 1946

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. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luce–Celler Act of 1946

Luce–Celler Act of 1946 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This act is not noteworthy because the act was just symbolic—the immigration quotas were for 100 people each. It doesn't deserve an article of its own. The current article misleads—the last sentence is the crucial part—the bill was a token grant of rights.

See http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/historyonline/immigration_chron.cfm

I tried to dig up secondary sources on the act to correct the article, and realized how non-notable it was:

• The govt. immigration agency's (CIS) website : http://www.uscitizenship.info/ins-usimmigration-insoverview.html on the history of US immigration laws does not mention this act in a lengthy summary.

• The official US historian's site (from the Department of State) does not mention this act, though it does mention the 1952 immigration act in the milestones of the 1945-52 period (http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952).

• The PBS timeline on US immigration (using a different source than any of the above) does not include this act (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/newamericans/foreducators_lesson_plan_03.html)

• Nor does this timeline of immigration laws from http://www.unc.edu/~perreira/198timeline.html maintained by Krista M. Perreira, a CPC faculty fellow at University of North Carolina (see http://www.cpc.unc.edu/people/fellows?person=kperreira). One has to burrow deeper to get to a one-line summary of the act. Once we get to the subpages where every law is noted, we see this: "- Luce- Celler bill grants right of naturalization and small immigration quotas to Asian Indians and Filipinos."

This kind of an article has real consequences; enotes has already copied us (http://www.enotes.com/topic/Luce%E2%80%93Celler_Act_of_1946).

PS: Even those who oppose immigration, granted a source with an agenda, do not mention this act: (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/research_us_laws/). For 1946 we see: "Procedures were adopted to facilitate immigration of foreign-born wives, fiance(e)s, husbands, and children of U.S. armed forces personnel." That is not the Luce-Celler act. It is hard to see why FAIR would fail to mention a notable immigration act, given their agenda. Ajoykt (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The fact that an Act of Congress is "merely" symbolic is in no way a reason to delete its article. James500 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is being an "Act of Congress" enough to fulfil the Wikipedia notability criteria? 68.126.188.48 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By analogy to criteria 5 of Wikipedia:Notability (books), I suggest that it may be. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US Code which lists all acts of Congress is 200,000 pages long, many times the length of Encyclopaedia Britannica. By your criteria, Wikipedia will become a law encyclopedia, with the law articles interfering with most searches and eating up most of server space. Ajoykt (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Wikipedia is not paper. (2) I am not proposing that we should include the full original text of any Act, because that can go on Wikisource. (3) I think that you seriously underestimate the amount of material available on subjects other than law. I also think that you overestimate the number of people who are willing to work on articles related to law, a subject that is, for the most part, only taught at an advanced level to relatively small numbers of people. WikiProject Biography, for example, says that it has about a million articles. WikiProject Law, on the other hand, says that it has about twenty thousand. I do not think that we are in any danger of being "swamped" by articles on the subject of law, even that was a problem, a proposition for which you have not offered any evidence, and which seems to conflict with Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. James500 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case there does not appear to be an assertion that the Act does not meet WP:GNG, per WP:BEFORE, only that it is either not mentioned or is only briefly mentioned in a list of specified sources, to the exclusion of all other sources. Moreover the sources that are offered do not look like the type of sources that I would expect to be looking at. My knowledge of the literature that is available on the law of the United States is limited, but, to begin with, does the United States not have publications equivalent to Halsbury's Statutes and the like? James500 (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the list of all laws of every country gets published in some official document or the other. Is that grounds for notability? By this criteria just the legal statutes alone will amount to most of Wikipedia. I think for a law to be notable, it has to have been mentioned by the media, academia and the like. If you can point me where to look, I am happy to update the article. The AfD is because WP:RS is impossible, and WP:GNG is questionable (mention in a federal gazette isn't notability) These abstract objections don't really help; does anybody have any sources which can disprove assertion of non-notability? Ajoykt (talk) 02:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this does satisfy WP:GNG. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The example that I gave, Halsbury's Statutes, is not merely a list of legislation. For each Act it provides details of all case law, amendments and subordinate legislation, and extensive annotations explaining what the Act means. And it, and several publications like it, are conclusive proof that that sort of information is notable. To begin with, I want you to positively tell me that there are no amendments to this statute, no case law on it, and no secondary legislation under it, and I want you to positively tell me that you know where to look for this sort of information.

Could you clarify what you mean by a federal gazette, and why you think that a mention in it isn't notable? James500 (talk) 03:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the federal gazette, I meant the US Code which is just a listing of laws. To answer your question, Luce Celler was overridden by the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. As to the rest, we are not a law encyclopedia. If we really included all statutes with case law, I think Wikipedia will soon become a law encyclopedia (what about laws of states like California, laws of other countries?) I think the onus really is on those who want to retain the article to show where reliable information shows its notability. The Google books results are pretty much one-line summaries. I agree with merging it into a larger article on US immigration, and making this title a redirect. How does one do that without deleting the article though? Ajoykt (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a law encyclopedia, just as much as it is a geography encyclopedia or a mathematics encyclopedia or a popular culture encyclopedia: it is a general encyclopedia that includes all of these. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Ajoykt: The Google Books results are not just one line summaries. If you look more closely you will see, IIRC, things like the number of people naturalized under the Act, and one that says that the East Indian community in the US would have disappeared if the Act had not been passed, that it took four years for it to pass, and etc. James500 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) In my view, we do need to include all statutory provisions and all case law somewhere. James500 (talk) 11:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: discussion not properly listed. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "Luce-Celler Act" does produce results in Google Books. Even if this Act does not require a separate article, its name must be a plausible redirect to something, possibly History of immigration to the United States, and is not therefore suitable for deletion. James500 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC) "Luce-Celler Bill" produces more results. James500 (talk) 03:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article (History of immigration to the United States) already says all the article on L-C says: "In 1946, the Luce-Celler Act extended the right to become naturalized citizens to newly freed Filipinos and Asian Indians. The immigration quota was set at 100 people a year". 68.126.188.48 (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which would make Luce-Celler Act of 1946 a plausible redirect to History of immigration to the United States even if there weren't sufficient sources to expand it, which there probably are. And merger does not involve deletion. James500 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or userfy - I think there are enough sources out there to justify an article, but a lot of work needs to be done. Bearian (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That its effect was symbolic does not mean it was unimportant. That people of these nationalities at all were given quotas was a significant step at the time, however feeble it sounds now. That's why we have articles on historical subjects: history gives perspective. There is sufficient sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• (Weak) Keep and improve - This particular law might probably not be significant for most Americans, but in the history of the Philippines, this could be more than just a footnote in my country's history, given the long record of US migration by Filipinos. I'll try to check local bookstores and see if this act does get mentioned in any major history textbook. --- Tito Pao (talk) 07:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep; the act is a major piece of legislation regarding the History of Asian American immigration, the History of Filipino Americans, and the effects it has on the historical settlement of Filipino Americans in the United States. Yes, the article needs to be improved drastically, but it is as important as the War Brides Act or the Magnuson Act. Additionally there are over one thousand mentions of the act in books, and 84 mentions in scholarly papers. The subject of the article clearly passes WP:GNG by a wide margin.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. James500 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Have something about it somewhere: If this isn't kept, I think at least some of the content should be merged into another article related to the topic Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 05:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep—Any act which increased a quota from zero is not "merely symbolic." Note that this would plausibly be linked from many pages such as Dalip Singh Saund, the first Indian member of the House of Representatives, who was naturalized in the wake of the act.--Carwil (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sources reflect its notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep national laws as notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2012 (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.