Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Form 1120


 * 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 merge to IRS tax forms. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  21:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Form 1120

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article consists of instructions pertaining to the U.S. tax form 1120 for corporations. It reads like something from the IRS. Wikipedia is not a manual WP:notmanual. It appears the article was created by a new Wikipedia editor. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: There are a number of other sources, including tax websites (TurboTax, HR Block), news websites (e.g, The New York Times, that has been covering the form since the end of World War I, and The Wall Street Journal). The article as it currently stands doesn't reference a lot of third-party sources, but it can be improved to include those. I'm in touch with the author of the original article on how to make the relevant improvements, and we expect to be done by the end of the week. In the interim, it seems that the article as it stands right now is a good start, and should simply have tags indicating need for improvement rather than being nominated for deletion.Vipul (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources above are search pages for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. There is no specific coverage of this form in the NYT as far as I can tell, and I am not going to look through all the titles to see if one turns up. Also, the tax forms are subjects of these stories and how they might impact constituents concerned with these. The tax forms are mentioned by name and that is it. These articles are not what this Wikipedia article is - the boring minute details of instructions on par with a booklet the IRS produces about what each line item of a tax form means - and this latter description is a summation of what this Wikipedia article is. It is not about "Form 1120" as the subject - it is instructional.


 * In the Wall Street Journal search page, there is only one hit on Form 1120 and that is a PDF download for Form 7004 in the year 2011 . In the WSJ, here is an article about what to do about taxes if you're an entrepreneur . It is not an approximate replica of IRS instructions, which is all this Wikipedia article is.


 * Please provide sources that are on point. It is the author's responsibility to provide verification WP:BURDEN. To wit - "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds...material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, joe deckertalk 01:21, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into IRS tax forms- the form itself isn't idependently notable, and Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. However, some of the information may be relevant and useful for the IRS tax forms article. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge (selective) into IRS tax forms. While US corporate taxation is a highly notable subject, the 1120 and 1120S forms themselves don't seem to have generated in-depth coverage other than tutorials and manuals. I was unable to find multiple in-depth RS about the form itself. Basic information is abundantly verifiable, however, and as a major IRS tax form, it warrants some coverage at IRS tax forms. In order to not unbalance that article, I suggest not more than a paragraph or so be merged. This is a plausible search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Mark! There are a lot of references in the article itself, including the history section (that includes a reference to two New York Times articles back from 1919: this and this) and in the Reception section (such as a Tax Foundation report, another New York Times article based on an earlier Tax Foundation report, plus other coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and other locations). You and Steve are correct to note that a lot of this coverage does not specifically discuss the individual lines of the form, but media coverage of a form is generally going to discuss its broader social implications (including the cost of compliance, reporting requirements, etc.) and not individual lines. I believe that this external coverage of the form (across the decades) is sufficient to establish notability. Whether some individual details need to be included or not (i.e., whether individual pieces of information have adequate reliable third-party coverage) is a separate issue.
 * As I noted above, although I didn't create the article I did ask for it to be created and worked closely with the author. Subsequently (after the nomination for deletion), I have added a lot of content to the page, some of it prompted by the concerns raised here.Vipul (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment I can agree with Mark and Joseph - merging is probably the best possible outcome for the page under discussion. Vipul, the point is this article does not reflect any kind of significant coverage from reliable sources. The topic "corporate taxation" is most likely notable - but this tax form is not notable, and this article is formatted and reads like an IRS tax manual. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  23:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - Wikipedia is not a how-to, and I don't see any other way this page could roll. The form changes every once in a while, and that in and of itself is not notable. WP:ENN certainly applies. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - Taxation is based on legislation not some independent forms process. In-depth articles that discuss tax policy mention the form number in passing.  It's not  in-depth about the forms.  I can see the value in the suggested merge. Gab4gab (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2016 (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.