Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expense Account


 * 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 per WP:SNOW driven by the vigorous and unanimous consensus in defense of the subject's encyclopedic notability. The nominator's concerns on the article, while obviously sincere, overlook two key considerations: there is no timeline for tagged articles to be fixed and an Orphan Article tag does not mean the article is without value. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Expense account

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

This belongs in Wikitionary rather than Wikipedia as it is simply a definition of a phrase. It has multiple tags, has been tagged since June 2008 and has not been improved. Given that it is also a dead end and an orphan (tagged by me today) then I think this article adds no value to wikipedia and should be deleted. TimTay (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator's remarks are a very fair criticism of the article as it is at the moment, but it would be possible to write a well-referenced, encyclopaedic article with this title.  So don't bring it to AfD: fix it instead.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, quite strongly. A worthwhile subject with potential for expansion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have expanded this article a bit, with information summarized from a couple IRS publications.  This introduces a new problem, of course: the article lacks a worldwide perspective.  But I think the article has successfully been expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is enough for this article to qualify as a stub, and the topic's notability is unquestionable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 14:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Definite scope for expansion in this article. JulesH (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a potentially encyclopedic topic. Hopefully it will get expanded into an article within a reasonable amount of time. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable topic, needs more info as others have said. Borock (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic about which a substantial encyclopedic article can and should be written. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly notable topic, see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep--in harmony with S Marshall and others. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stubs are good, and there is no deadline. –  7 4   20:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - AfD is not cleaup. It might be an idea to consolidate some of those templates so editors have a clearer idea where to start with it. Artw (talk) 20:54, 13 March 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.