Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adoption tax credit


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Adoption tax credit

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article fails the guideline for not using Wikipedia as a dictionary reference guide; it simply defines what the U.S. adoption tax credit is, making the entry look like a guidebook for those who need to take advantage of the credit. While perhaps a noble goal in its own right, it violates our policies. Additionally, the article fails to meet standards for notability since it lacks independent sources that can establish its significance.Tobit2 (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Completion of incomplete nomination. No deletion rationale invoked.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly good idea for an article. Whatever mess needs to be cleaned up, but that is not a reason for deletion. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - the article resembles neither a dictionary nor a how to guide. The article most certainly doesn't fail notability, as we judge articles by potential not their current state.  An adoption tax credit is the subject of over 1000 news stories and covered in nearly 400 books. Sure the article is imperfect and needs both editing & referencing, but Wikipedia is a work in progress and AfD is not for forcing cleanup. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think there's plenty of precedent for keeping this type of entry.  And no, I'm not arguing "other stuff exists" so much as "there are lots of already established rationales for keeping articles like this".  We have the potential to do a lot more with this entry than create a dictionary entry, and I think the beginnings of such is already there.  --A rolling stone (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC) — A rolling stone (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep It may need a bit of tidying up, but it does not fail notability. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment A Google News Search returned 1230 hits - from 1982 to 2008. Just because the article is currently unsourced does not mean there aren't sources that could be used. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 15:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.