Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 21:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with the nominator. As well as being not a newspaper, WP is not a court record.  We can not have an article every time someone sues someone else, no matter how notable they are.  If this was part of a larger event that event would warrant an article, probably. Skylark777 (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment User:Mrfrobinson has nominated 14 articles for deletion in 2014. Out of those nominations 50% were articles that I started. See also my comments in an earlier afd  Ottawahitech (talk) 01:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the decision of a court is not news if it is a binding or persuasive precedent, on grounds that the precedential value of the case will presumably last forever or until the case is overruled. I have found sources that say that the decisions of district courts are of "persuasive value": . This case is apparently taking place in the district court of the District of Columbia. James500 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Government agencies and corporations are involved in law suits all the time, and such suits receive routine coverage. I see no evidence at this time that this case is truly notable, in its early phases. The article can be recreated if the case proves to be significant. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  00:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * you say “I see no evidence at this time that this case is truly notable”. Are you expressing a personal opinion or is your delete vote based on wiki-policy, and if so which. Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, . We don't make deletion desisions based only on policy, but also on guidelines, respected essays, and studying common outcomes, which reflect ongoing consensus. The widely respected General notability guideline calls for "significant coverage" in reliable sources. A widely cited essay, WP:RUNOFTHEMILL, describes the kind of sources that are doubtful for establishing notability and not truly "significant". These stories, in this particular case, are routine reporting of early benchmarks of a case that is not yet notable. In-depth articles by legal analysts describing this case as something unusual or significant would constitute such significant coverage, in my judgment. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MILL is not a helpful essay. The theory it advances is basically wrong. The specific examples it gives, where they are not wrong, are mainly excluded by various parts of WP:NOT, of which it is a misreading. Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of Records. James500 (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * what exactly do you consider run of the mill in this article:
 * Large corporations routinely sue the IRS over Freedom of information Act infractions?
 * The IRS is in the habit of contravening the Freedom of information Act?
 * Large corporations routinely claim in court that the IRS illegally withheld information?
 * The IRS routinely hires outside contractors and gives them access to taxpayers’ confidential information?
 * The IRS routinely (mis)uses taxpayer money to outsource its functions to contractors?
 * The IRS routinely audits transfer pricing cost sharing agreements?
 * The IRS frequently sues company executives when auditing the company’s tax returns? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question. If, for the sake of argument, this is presently a news story, should it not in fact be transwikied to our sister project, Wikinews, using the import process? James500 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply In my opinion, Wikinews is a failed project, with an Alexa rating of #47,420 as opposed to #7 for Wikipedia. Only 80 articles were created there in 2014. It was a nice idea, but almost nobody reads it. So, it is not a realistic alternative. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This argument is completely devoid of merit. There are more than a billion websites, so a rank of less than fifty thousand is not that bad. "Don't transwiki content to Wikinews because it has low traffic" is a self-fulfilling prophecy that will make Wikinews fail if acted on. If we were to transwiki material there regularly, the site's traffic would increase. It is fairly obvious that the relatively low traffic of some of our sister projects is at least partly due to persistent erroneous failure to transwiki content. In any event transwikiing pages within the scope of Wikinews over to Wikinews cannot reasonably be regarded as optional because failure to do so will obviously harm that project, which is still open. It cannot be regarded as defunct until it is actually closed. James500 (talk) 09:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Ottawahitech, can you explain why this particular court case (one of hundreds that have involved Microsoft) is encyclopedic? I would expect a case entered here to be ground-breaking in its effect on the topic of the suit. LaMona (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Microsoft v. Internal Revenue Service to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * I agree with Ottawahitech's comments here regarding why this is not a run-of-the-mill case. The significant coverage in numerous reliable sources supports Ottawahitech's statements. Cunard (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard and Ottawahitech. James500 (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I;m persuaded that there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability here. Davewild (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2015 (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.