[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Form 1040 (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. obvious strong consensus DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Form 1040

edit
AfDs for this article:
Form 1040 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is on the U.S. tax form 1040 for individuals. It reads far too close to explaining how to do a tax return, especially by giving "who must file" and "signature requirement" sections, explaining different ways to file, and so on. The IRS is the authority on this - Wikipedia is not a manual, nor do we give advice. This article was expanded by a paid editor who is getting paid on page hits by User:Vipul - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Form 1120. An AfD on Form 1120 resulted in a redirect to IRS tax forms. I attempted to do the same here, but another paid editor associated with Vipul, has repeatedly undone the redirect. Therefore, I am bringing this to AfD for community consensus. MSJapan (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would report the above editors to the Administrators, if I were you. GUtt01 (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different issue. We're here at AfD because the content itself is a problem. An ANI report on this matter is much bigger than just this article. MSJapan (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I will agree with MSJapan on a redirect. However, the user should have done an AfD when the blank-and-redirect they did was reverted, not attempt to revert the user (mentioned above) a couple of times themselves as much. GUtt01 (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those 3RR templates you placed are inappropriate for several reasons: neither of us violated the rule, nor did we continue to edit after reaching three reverts over a week ago. Please remove them per my request on your talk page. MSJapan (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my vote for Redirection. I believe it's best that US editors discuss this. GUtt01 (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the "normal editorial process" is being suborned by paid editors. MSJapan (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are also guidebooks to a form legally required to be filled out. How is it not a case of WP:ENN? MSJapan (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Where are guidebooks or legal mandates listed as exceptions to GNG? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not, but let me clarify: WP:NOTHOWTO certainly seems to indicate there are exceptions to use of sources. How can one reliably source material from a "how-to guide" in such a way that the article does not reflect the "how-to-ness" of the source, given that one cannot use a source for something it does not say? Frankly, it's not appropriate to be breaking down what goes on what line, who can file in what bracket and on what form, and so on. That's telling the reader how to file their taxes, and I'm pretty sure, policy aside, we're not legally allowed to pretend to be tax preparers or give tax advice. Take all that out, though, and there's nothing left besides "the 1040 is an individual tax form; it has lines for stuff." MSJapan (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the books on it are only how-to guides. For instance the first one of the ones I listed, "Learning to Love Form 1040: Two Cheers for the Return-Based Mass Income Tax", is not. Another likely source (of shorter length) is A short history of Form 1040, Harper's, 1977 (subscription required). There are also many more-technical publications about it in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - With edits like [9]? So the article is going to tell me where I can deduct my sales tax, and that I can deduct other types of taxes, too. This is precisely the sort of thing we should not be doing with this article, and it's precisely what's going to end up in the article, especially when there's a batch of paid editors working on it who make money based on how many people come here and look at the article. Turning it into an advice article contrary to policy is directly going to benefit them. But fine, you all want to leave this here, claim it needs to be improved, and then ignore it entirely, allowing a bunch of undisclosed paid editors do what they want with it, that's fine with me. Who needs policy anyway? MSJapan (talk) 23:04, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, none of the paid editors working on the Form 1040 page are paid for pageviews. Since this seemed to be causing confusion, it was recently addressed in an update. I'm not sure how you are using the word "undisclosed"; all of the contributors are listed. Riceissa (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Riceissa:I'm glad it was addressed off-site, but that's not how paid editing disclosure works here on Wikipedia. That's why you're "not sure of how I am using a word"; that does not, however, mean that you are "correct." You are out of compliance with the requirements as set out in policy, and thus, you and your entire group are undisclosed paid editors. If any of you had responded to the thread on COIN, you'd know that, but you didn't, and your employer ignored what he was told. See WP:PAID. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and improve. Just because the article was (arguably) tainted with some questionable edits, doesn't mean it should be deleted. I've deleted some HOWTO-information, and added references to the risk of identity theft and to the cost of filing taxes. Dandv 06:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an FYI, the fundamental problem is the sourcing - when the sources are limited to the IRS and sites that are used to do taxes and give tax tips (Intuit, Investopedia, etc.), there's no way to write an article that isn't slanted towards advice, because that is what those sites are for in the first place. I've cleaned out everything that implies or explicitly states: "you should", "you must", "this goes here", "the requirements to use this form are", and so on. I also took out trivia about line numbers. MSJapan (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While phrasings like "should" and "note" have also raised flags with me, I believe that your unilaterally wiping out of over 20,000 bytes of knowledge on August 2 was a bit extreme. I've only undone so far your deletion of my edit and its surrounding sections, which had no advice information and offered factual figures, letting the reader make up their mind. Please consider improving the article instead. -- Dandv 04:11, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Form_1040_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1144355975"