Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qualified personal residence trust (2nd nomination)


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 02:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Qualified personal residence trust
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I know I'm renominating immediately after a non-consensus close, but there is an aspect not considered there. The article's first version includes the line "taken from attorney Jacob Stein's treatise on tax planning, with his permission." and the overwhelming proportion of the content from that version remains. Though permission is asserted, no free copyright license was ever given, and permission to use win a wikipedia article by itself is not enough, because our material must also be reusable, and nothing less than CC-BY-SA is adequate. Tho the original work is not available to me, and there are several possible books of his, I think the likelihood of copyvio is so great that it must be deleted. This was in fact an exercise at self-promotion, and the article on the author was deleted on that basis  here. The topic is notable, but the only way to free it from copyvio is to delete it and start over.  DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to Trust law or United States trust law. A QPRT, much like a GRAT is a notable topic in US estate tax planning. See, e.g., . If the current text is a copyvio, we can stub it down or at least redirect to the parent topic of Trust law, leaving open the possibility for an editor to expand on this topic later. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete - My opinion has not changed since nominating this the first time. No objection at all to a delete and Redirect, though. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 07:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My opinion about the alleged promotion in this article hasn't changed either: there isn't any. You might as well argue that the articles we copy almost verbatim from the 1885 DNB and the 1911 Britannica are an attempt to promote those sources, rather than an attempt to save time and effort.
 * The source from which our article says it is "taken" with the author's permission is That URL is indeed a deadlink. But, the journal article in question seems to be available for download from this page. I'm afraid that my device can't read the .pdf document that is available, so someone else will have to check its contents. James500 (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 00:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would normally not question a nomination by user:DGG, however as an editor who believes Wikipedia lacks information  on Law (lawyers, legal cases, legislation, terminology, etc) I really question  the wisdom of this mass removal of content that has been around Wikipedia longer than I have. If the concern is wp:copyright wouldn’t it make more sense to simply post a request at WikProject Law? If the concern is wp:COI then deal with it without deleting the content. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC) UPDATE' Still no mention on Wikiproject Law? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you have three times now restored the same sort of material I removed from another article, I assume the "mass removal of content" is the removal of Jacob Stein's refspam, copyvios, peacock language ("consult an expert like Jacob Stein" appeared multiple times through the encyclopedia), and otherwise grossly promotional material added by a large number of SPAs. That some of the refs are less promotional than others is certainly the case, however, and if an experienced Wikipedian like yourself wanted to recreate or develop some of the material, citing Stein in the process, I would have no problem assuming good faith that he was determined to be a reliable source. What I don't support is simply restoring it simply because it's good to see refs in an article and they had remained in the article for a long time without being detected. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 04:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What I meant by mass removal is Jacob Stein and Foreign trust. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC) By the way not everyone views SPAs like you do. Ottawahitech (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. SPA is a symptom of a particular problem, not the problem itself. It's not that they are SPAs and therefore they made lousy contributions. It's that there is (was) a widespread pattern of very similar or identical kinds of edits, and the fact that these edits were made by SPAs more strongly suggests promotion/socking. The only reason I didn't file an SPI is because one based on years-old edits wouldn't likely get much traction and it's a whole lot of time/work putting one of those together, when I don't even know if he/they will try to do this again. I started to keep track of some of the users/edits/articles in a notepad file which has grown a little unwieldy. Hopefully I'll never have to actually use it. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 05:43, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree we need much more good material on law, and it is not altogether impossible for an attorney to write it, if they know enough to keep their name out of it. One of the problems, of course, is that is really has to be done separately or with extensive explanation for each major country--at least each major english speaking country, and there are very few people who know enough to do it for more than their own particular legal system. This for example, is US, but unless you already recognize the terminology, you won't find that out in the article, except for a footnote reference to California. And all attorneys's sites and almost all legal textbooks only deal with one systems & usually feel no need to even specify what to them is obvious.   DGG ( talk ) 06:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: This discussion is sucking up a lot of energy and I am not sure it has done anything to improve wikipedia in the long run. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here, as with all of the other times you've restored the promotional content or protested its removal, you're not presenting any rationale at all. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Qualified personal residence trust is more than just a tad too long for only two sources, one of which is a link to a commercial law office and the other to Jacob Stein. Stein features a little too heavily in articles by Lawguru20002 for my liking. Without more strictly independent reliable, non commercial sources, this article does not meet any notability standards and if not some kind of spam, is at best Original research. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @User:Kudpung: It is not enough to just look at the sources in the article. You need to actually look for sources with a search engine (WP:BEFORE). There are about ninety sources that come up immediately in Google Books alone, including entire chapters of a number books such as this one published by the American Bar Association (an unequivocally reliable source). And here is a massive chunk of text in one law book, and extensive discussion in another, published by (unequivocally reliable) CCH. I could go on like this, but I think that will suffice as an illustration. Then, of course, there are hundreds of sources in GScholar, including many entire journal articles on the subject. This topic clearly satisfies GNG easily and by a wide margin. No one else here has disputed that. The only plausible objection to this article is copyright, and so far no one professes to have actually looked at the source suspected to be infringed, which is linked to above. James500 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one else here has disputed that. Precisely. So why respond to what nobody has said? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 22:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "No one else here" (emphasis added) was intended to mean "no one except Kudpung". If his words "this article does not meet any notability standards" are not an (erroneous) assertion that the topic of QPRTs fails GNG, it is not clear what they mean. James500 (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I didn't see Kudpung brought up notability. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Only two sources is a problem? Here is an example of an article I just happened to see which is based on only ONE hardcopy source: Divisional Cavalry Regiment (New Zealand). If we rid Wikipedia overnight of all articles that are based on only two or less reliable sourcesI bet we could easily half our 4million+ articles. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 18:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Agree with analysis by, above. Significant discussion among multiple secondary sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What analysis? The response to notability that Kudpung brought up but nobody else did (including the nominator)? The existence of sources is not relevant here. --&mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 01:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not entirely sure why people are voting keep when the concern is copyvio without first checking to see if it is, in fact, a copyvio, which it appears to be (at least in part). A pdf of the article it was taken from is here. Compare the following quotes:
 * From the Wikipedia article:

"Residence trusts are used to transfer a grantor’s residence out of the grantor’s estate at a low gift tax value. Once the trust is funded with the grantor’s residence, the residence and any future appreciation of the residence are excluded from the grantor’s estate,"
 * From the linked article

"QPRTs are used to transfer a settlor's residence out of the settlor's estate at a low gift tax value. Once the trust is funded with the settlor's residence, the residence and any future appreciation of the residence is excluded from settlor's estate."
 * and again, from the Wikipedia article:

"Personal residence trusts (“PRTs”) are irrevocable split interest trusts. (. . . ) the grantor retains the right to live in the house for a number of years, rent free, and then the remainder beneficiaries of the trust become fully vested in their interest."
 * and from the linked article

"The QPRT is a split-interest trust, with the settlor retaining a term-of-years right to live in the residence rent free, with the remainder interest going to the remainder beneficiaries." Aside from the first couple paragraphs in the intro; most of the rest of the article does not seem to be an obvious copyvio from that source, so it may just be those two sentences. However, as you can see those two sentences are virtually word for word and I'm wondering where else this was taken from? ~  ONUnicorn (Talk problem solving 20:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Transfer to WP:CP. There does not seem to be a reason to delete besides copyright, which is best handled there. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 14:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 February 13.  —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot I  <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 17:55, 13 February 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.