Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De Minimis Fringe Benefits


 * 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 No Consensus to delete, requires cleanup. Davewild (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

De Minimis Fringe Benefits

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No CSD. Besides, I'm not entirely sure if this page should be deleted, or if it could be encyclopedic. Cassie Puma (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete This text is plainly a copy of some IRS manual (consider the section reference). Comes, as it stands, under WP is not is not a how-to. If it is significantly revised by closure, into an actual stub, keep, but if not, we lose nothing by starting over. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The section references are references to the actual regulations. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a badly written article (For starters, it doesn't actually explain what the subject is.) but a quite valid subject, as about 1 minute with Google Books reveals. Uncle G (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt this is a valid subject. But is this the best way to begin an article on it, or should we start over from scratch? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, stubify, or merge to a relevant article. Well-references, not a copyvio. I'll work on it. Bearian (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a copy of "some IRS article." The article is based on the IRC and the Treas. Regs. see 132(a)(4) and 1.132-6. Also, what does CSD stand for? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ify.offor (talk • contribs) 2007-12-07T21:22:05
 * Criteria for speedy deletion Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a very tricky area of tax law that changes as often as annually. I don't feel we should be responsible for a detailed tax manual. At best this is a merge to employee benefit (US fringe benefit). There are more broadly scoped articles on individual countries' taxation of benefits such as Fringe Benefits Tax (Australia), and I would urge writing one of those for the US instead of this. (By tricky, of course, I mean that there are substantial penalties for misunderstanding or misapplying the rules.) --Dhartung | Talk 21:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am the author of this page. Is the problem with this article that it doesn't have a lead? If that is the case, I can fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ify.offor (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's not one that requires that the entire article be deleted in order to fix, though.  What your article needs is a good explanation, accessible to the ordinary reader, of the subject in its introduction.  Read Guide to writing better articles.  This isn't hard.  There's material for sourcing such an explanation in the first 4 books turned up by a Google Books search, for starters.  Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but obviously needs major work. At the very minimum I'd like the article to tell me which countries this concept applies to. For example if I live in Burkina Faso can I take advantage of this? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2007 (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.