Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax attribute


 * 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   keep.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 04:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tax attribute

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reads like a press release, does not cite any sources, and is an orphan. Also, I believe it is sort of a POV in a way. ConCompS talk review 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep No reason to delete is provided by the nomination. Please see our policies WP:BEFORE and WP:IMPERFECT.  Colonel Warden (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, it is sort of not WP:NPOV. That's a legit reason. It's also unreferenced and it reads like a press release. ConCompS talk review 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sort of" doesn't cut it. Myself, I find it very dry and entirely lacking in POV - like reading a tax statute.  Addition of sources and writing style are not reasons to delete as they may be remedied by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant to say not NPOV. You can have your opinions on whether it isn't NPOV or is NPOV. I'm just saying. ConCompS talk review 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep - it is possible to fix this; it is a notable legal provision. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thing is, how are we going to find sources? ConCompS talk review 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the search links above. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know where they are, but for a legal document like this, we'd only rely on one source or two. ConCompS talk review 13:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - I don't know much about it, but from what I can tell from reading articles and book excerpts on google it's certainly a notable and verifiable topic. It's not a great article as yet, but AFD is not cleanup. -- Beloved Freak  17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously a notable topic, per the sources and the legal significance. The article needs some work by someone with access to US tax law resources, but the article's current state is no reason to delete. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (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.