Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg


 * 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 Redirect to Luxembourg Leaks. Whether or not the list was stolen is not very relevant (as long as it is not copyrighted). However, it is only a laundry list of company names that is readily available elsewhere on the web. Therefore, I do not see much use in a merge, either. However, some of the references may be useful in tha Luxembourg Leaks article, so I am closing this as "redirect", with the content available in the article history. Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

List of multinationals with disclosed tax agreements in Luxembourg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list is based on stolen information. Argumento14 (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the source for that statement? If "stolen", from what owner? Has that owner made known that it was "stolen"? Qexigator (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * +The company's named may or may not welcome the publicity, but company information is regularly collected and made available by websites in the course of business. The information may have been confidential at the time, but is unlikely to be commercially sensitive by now. The existence of all forms of company business entity are a privilege under public law, and liable as such to scrutiny for creditworthiness, and generally in respect of commercial and other impact on others. If these companies were not savvy enough to know that the information could be liable to EU scrutiny, or otherwise become of interest to critics of "tax avoidance" etc., the firm involved in setting up the tax arrangements should have warned them, just as a physician or surgeon is expected to warn about the risks of treatment. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The title is misleading in several ways; it is a list of companies revealed in the Luxembourg Leaks. That information is neither stolen nor notable enough for its own article. An external link to a copy of the list could be added to the Leaks article, e.g. Business Insider (third reference in this list). Clarityfiend (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information is notable. The article links to various sources that provide that list on their own webpage or that deal with the leaked documents of particular companies. On most websites the companies are allocated to an industry (energy, finance, health, ...) -- Neudabei (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not sure about notability, but if the list is kept, the unclassified alphabetic and links would be points in its favour. Qexigator (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into Luxembourg Leaks. Avoid forks like plagues and clichės.  Bearian (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge into Luxembourg Leaks. Metamagician3000 (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST. Even the list itself gives no reason why it might have encyclopedic value - just that it was published online.  Since we aren't a web host, that isn't enough reason. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with WP:NOTWEBHOST rationale. Vrac (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2014 (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.