Talk:List of people who have benefited from United States immigration laws

Dennis L. Dalton

The AP and the bill which renaturalized him claim that he lost U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1433(b), which until 1978 required citizens born abroad to reside in the U.S. for two years between the ages of 14 and 28 in order to retain citizenship. This is probably not correct, because he was age 26 and living in the U.S. when he received his notification of loss of citizenship. The actual reason he lost citizenship is probably 8 U.S.C. § 1482 (also repealed in 1978), which provided for loss of U.S. citizenship by persons born with dual citizenship who resided in the country of their other citizenship for three years after the age of 18. Unfortunately I can't find a WP:RS confirming this yet. quant18 (talk) 00:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability

People who are not notable, do not belong in a clear OR list on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Look, obviously the list needed pruning. I enjoyed creating it but I knew eventually it would be pruned. I am surprised it took so long. However, just because an individual does not have a stand alone article doesn't disqualify him or her from being included. Someone who is granted naturalization by act of a private bill in the United States Congress is inherently notable (maybe that's my ethnocentrism as a U.S. citizen, because it is pretty darned rare), as are instances, for the purposes of this article, close relations who benefit from private legislation based solely upon their relationship or kinship to such diverse influential individuals as Owney Madden, Maureen Reagan, or Elizabeth Taylor. Quis separabit? 00:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone who is naturalized by special bill is not notable thereby. And for the claim that the bill is because of a relationship with a notable person is irrelevant unless you find a strong secondary reliable source making the claim. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"Someone who is naturalized by special bill is not notable thereby." -- please explain. Quis separabit? 01:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"[N]o strong secondary reliable source"?? What? http://www.gpo.gov is not a reliable source, nor is http://www.govtrack.us?? Quis separabit? 01:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, sources such as gpo.gov publish acts as a primary source. Find out where some schnook on a newspaper or the like found it notable enough to mention. I would point out that gpo.gov is a primary source for many thousands of items each day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense

This is nonsense. According to @Collect, @‎Edward321 -- names on the list must be notable. (WP:LIST says that "... entries to be sourced with reliable secondary sourcing, and to be about persons who are notable.") I claim mine are; they say no. That is a subjective dispute which should be settled by consensus. As far as sourcing goes -- the disputed entries are eminently sourced and there are no redlinks as @‎Edward321 absurdly claims in his edit summary. Names do not, as far as I know and I just recheck WP:LIST to make sure, have to be stand-alone articles for inclusion on a list provided they are properly sourced, which mine are. I am not going to start an edit war, violate 3RR or get into a pissing contest about this, but I will revisit this issue. Quis separabit? 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, as I asked @Collect, is every list on Wikipedia going to be reviewed and every non-stand alone article entry going to be removed from each and every listing? Like to see that happen (sarcasm). Quis separabit? 00:42, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

As you note (WP:LIST says that "... entries to be sourced with reliable secondary sourcing, and to be about persons who are notable.") That last phrase is the key to this issue. None of your sources indicate that Volsky, Madden, or Wilding are notable people. All are "redlinks" - people without articles on Wikipedia. There are also problems with "reliable secondary sourcing". Yahoo groups and IMDB are not reliable sources, some of the other sources mentioned are not secondary sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Also note: It is not anyone's "job" to examine every list on Wikipedia. When we find problem lists, then we try to fix them or have them removed. There are a great many problem articles on Wikipedia - far too many for any one person to remotely pretend to handle. Collect (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

A non-linked name is not the same as a red-linked name. IMDb was only used to establish that Michael Howard Wilding was a onetime actor, not to glean disputable information. And perhaps @Edward321 can stop using the euphemism "trimmed" when he really means "deleted". Quis separabit? 15:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 23 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: boldly moved to alternative proposal - no prejudice to another RM to get consensus on the exact wording but due to low participation and extremely poor titling I'll boldly move DrStrauss talk 13:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

---

List of beneficiaries of immigration/nationality-related United States Private Bills/Laws → ? – There has to be a clearer name for this article which does not include slashes, but I cannot think of one at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Steel1943: List of people who have benefited from United States immigration laws? DrStrauss talk 20:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.