Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Companies of the United States with untaxed profits

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. Clearly no consensus to delete; further discussion about a possible merge can be pursued in the appropriate place. Mojo Hand (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Companies of the United States with untaxed profits (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)

Simply said this article by nature is original research. Mrfrobinson (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article itself provides references to secondary sources that not only establish this sort of list as a notable topic, but also provides each of the entries on the list. This is not original research, it appears to be combining multiple secondary sources of a notable topic in one place-- or, in less verbose terms, it's an encyclopedia article. Fieari (talk) 06:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep tentatively. I filled out the references already in the article -- they are Reuters and Guardian news articles reporting on widely known information -- and they seem reliable. The topic seems "important" and covered as a topic. Wikipedia is good for developing/maintaining lists like this; this is just a start. --doncram 21:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I further added more studies on the overall topic: Bloomberg, Wall Street Journal. It's a recurring topic, valid for an article, meets wp:LISTN. The facts for individual firms, not yet very well developed as list-items yet, can be provided from public financial statements, which are audited, reliable records of what they report. I strike the tentativeness in my vote; it is a clear "Keep" i believe. --doncram 22:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• (Selective) Merge and redirect to Tax_avoidance#United_States. This seems to be an article concentrating on one overly particular type of corporate tax avoidance, which is certainly not unique to the USA. A general article on corporate tax avoidance may be useful, but something as overly specific as this seems unnecessary. At best, the name of this article is wrong, because the companies using this form of tax avoidance will constantly change, therefore be difficult to keep track of. Sionk (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (Selective) Merge and redirect to Tax_avoidance#United_States. Part of a campaign by the creator of the article to use Wikipedia for advocacy. There is an accompanying category also up for deletion, here. Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The existence of the article simply supports a WP:SOAPBOX position that there is something insidious about companies engaging in fully legal tax minimization strategies. Congress can change the law at any time, and has not done so. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a useful expansion of Tax_avoidance#United_States. No objection to turning this later on into a multi-country article and then renaming the article accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: update I and perhaps others have edited the article to include more sources, after some of the votes above, including describing a number of studies specifically on this topic. It's a notable topic. I agree, definitely, that the article should be kept impartial, should state both sides of any arguments about what should be done with the untaxed profits, but the article did not and does not include any controversial assertions at all. It's useful to state there is debate, e.g. included now "As the Wall Street Journal notes, the "[u]ntaxed foreign earnings are part of a contentious debate over U.S. fiscal policy and tax code." Also it is very doable to list the 60 or 70 companies having the greatest amounts, in a big table yet to be developed. Dot-point list is fine to start. This topic has been in the news for years and will stay in the news. Wikipedia is good at providing factual info on important topics like this article can. --doncram 19:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there look to be sufficient sources for this but it needs a very carefully articulated inclusion criteria and standards for sourcing. Otherwise there are serious concerns for it's maintainability and the extent to which it could attract POV and OR. No prejudice against renomination down the road if it proves untenable in that regard, but for now it looks doable. It should also be renamed to reflect being a list (being a list is what justifies keeping it rather than merge to tax avoidance). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:45, 16 February 2015 (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.