Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Income tax and compensation for services


 * 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 merged and redirected to Internal Revenue Code section 61. Nothing to see here, move along people. Non-admin closure. shoy 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Income tax and compensation for services

 * – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a guide to filling out your taxes. Not suitable for an encyclopedia. shoy 22:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. As well as not being a guide to fill out your tax forms, this reference only applies to one country among the many that Wikipedia covers.  I think this article could only be salvaged if it attempted to discuss the principles more generally.  Accounting4Taste 22:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:NOT. That was an easy one. - Rjd0060 22:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not even a significant part of US tax case law. --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Are you guys looking at the same article I am? I cannot see how the delete rationale and votes above apply to it. AndyJones 13:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; furthermore, this article is needlessly duplicative of the articles we already have on Income tax in the United States and Internal Revenue Code section 61. There is little or no valuable information worth keeping in this article.  --Eastlaw 04:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Same Question Again. In what way is this article a how to? Does it give instructions telling you how to do something that I'm missing? I'm not a US tax specialist, but at a glance the article appears to me to contain some material not covered at Internal Revenue Code section 61. Besides isn't any complaint that the cases cited here are not very significant covered by Wikipedia is not paper? In any event, if an article on a technical topic is redundant with another, surely the best approach is to boldly merge, or to boldly redirect, without invoking AfD? As for the systemic bias issue, well, surely, tax laws are different from country to country, and therefore most of our tax-related articles, except the top-level ones, are jurisdiction-specific. AndyJones 07:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete but move the bulk of the material itself to Internal Revenue Code section 61, to which the material closely relates. For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree with the argument that this is a "how to" in the sense that my fellow editor(s) is/are applying the critique. It's just that this material doesn't seem to warrant its own separate article in this form, especially seeing that the section 61 article probably could stand some expansion. Again, this is classic section 61 material, and logically would go in the article on section 61. By the way, one of the cases cited -- Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner -- is indeed a leading case in the area of U.S. Federal income taxation (every tax law student reads this case). Yours, Famspear 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So your vote really is merge? If so, I'd support that. You sound qualified to do that, so why don't you go ahead? Then we can ask an admin for a speedy close and redirect. AndyJones 19:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - it isn't appropriate to delete articles because encyclopedic information has some incidental utility to it. Usefulness isn't necessarily an unconditional basis for inclusion, but we don't delete articles because the information included happens to be useful. Well outside the spirit of WP:NOT. — xDanielx T/C 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   -- Gavin Collins 08:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT. Unencyclopedic article. Keb25 08:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Internal Revenue Code section 61 - I don't understand how this article is describe as a guide to filling out your taxes. The nominating justification is not accurate.  It describes the compensation requirements for the income tax in the United States.  The size is sufficient and the material is sourced.  I don't see how deleting the material would be of any value, but keeping it may prove useful.  Many of the tax articles are for a particular country, except for the top level ones - The U.S. has its own template.  Morphh   (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep. If this was a "how-to" guide, I'd want my money back. The article covers a facet of income tax law that's sufficiently important to exercise judges and expensive lawyers, but really wouldn't help you fill in your tax return. Merge per above suggestions, as it probably doesn't warrent its own article. J.W inklethorpe talk 21:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll add the merge banner and see how everyone feels about it.EECavazos 23:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Merged —Preceding unsigned comment added by EECavazos (talk • contribs) 02:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it was Merged, I went ahead and redirected it. Please close the AFD.  Morphh   (talk) 12:59, 16 October 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.