Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decoupling modification
- 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Decoupling modification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks substantial RS coverage. In fact, most of the coverage in gbooks does not even relate to this tax concept. Tagged for notability for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and clarify. Based on the tax form used as an example, the term has a somewhat broader use than just for depreciation schedules, but for various other state modifications of their income tax rules to provide for differences from the corresponding of federal income tax rules. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see substantial RS coverage of this term -- which at best is only a dic def anyway -- in gnews and gbooks. Nor is it reflected in the article. Nor does DGG point to anyway. In the absence of meeting GNG, and since this is a dic def, I don't see the basis for this !vote in WP policy.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 20:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Corporate tax in the United States#Earnings and profits (or perhaps State income tax#Corporate income tax). As far as I see this sense of the term "decoupling modification" is exclusive to Maryland. --Lambiam 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a redirect. But I don't think this is appropriate material for a merge. It is all challenged text that lacks inline citations. Once redirected, of course any appropriate referenced material could be created at the article to which it is redirected.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current text is not clear enough and needs to be rewritten; finding usable references is less of a problem (e.g. "Q. Do all states follow the federal depreciation rules? A. No.", "Many states follow the federal depreciation rules. However, a number of states do not accept some or all of the accelerated depreciation rules.", and this page or form 500DM itself for the Maryland term "decoupling modification" – and for an in-depth treatment, "this paper".). Only a redirect violates the WP:R#PLA rule that the user should readily see why they were sent to the target page. --Lambiam 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can (and, per your comment, it would seem should) be accompanied by the creation of content at the target page. That is often, though not always, the case. Often elementary schools for example are redirected to target articles that until then have no content on the school in question -- not even a name. The benefit of doing it this way over a merge is that there is no need for the person suggesting a redirect to ensure that the history of the old, unreferenced text is moved over. A simple creation of new text (properly sourced) is all that is needed.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The current text is not clear enough and needs to be rewritten; finding usable references is less of a problem (e.g. "Q. Do all states follow the federal depreciation rules? A. No.", "Many states follow the federal depreciation rules. However, a number of states do not accept some or all of the accelerated depreciation rules.", and this page or form 500DM itself for the Maryland term "decoupling modification" – and for an in-depth treatment, "this paper".). Only a redirect violates the WP:R#PLA rule that the user should readily see why they were sent to the target page. --Lambiam 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I could see a redirect. But I don't think this is appropriate material for a merge. It is all challenged text that lacks inline citations. Once redirected, of course any appropriate referenced material could be created at the article to which it is redirected.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (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.