Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States

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. There was a lot of discussion about merging the content of this article into Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, although not quite enough to say that there was a consensus to merge. It may be worthwhile to start a merge discussion on the talk page of the article. ‑Scottywong | gab _ 05:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FATCA agreement between Canada and the United States

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates the Foreign_Account_Tax_Compliance_Act and is boarder line original research. While yes Canada has agreed to this it should be captured in the actual article. Additionally, the article's creator has been on a soap box about this agreement and has been adding information to various Canadian Bank articles about it. A similar article was recently redirected to actual FATCA article however I do not feel a redirect would be appropriate in this case. Mrfrobinson (talk) 16:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments may be needed to resolve this issue, as only two editors have commented so far. Also see the talk page.

My own feeling is this article may be needed if each country has its own conditions for agreeing, or there is some else different or notable about Canada's agreement of the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without merge to Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act#FATCA intergovernmental agreements. This title appears to be being used as a POV fork and appears to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Not a single source in the article discusses the actual agreement terms, just some onerous sounding "effects" to numerous Canadians and an "enormous" cost to Canadian banks. There's not so much in the criticism/controversy section at the main FATCA article that this needs to be spun off, nor does it appear the Canadian concerns are substantially different than those any other countries affected by FATCA. If some specific issue comes up with respect to this agreement, which I strongly believe would have to do with its interaction with the idiosyncrasies of Canadian law rather than general concerns with FATCA, it can most likely be addressed in the main FATCA article when it becomes an issue. However, I also support a delete given the redirect is not particularly helpful, and I don't see much page history here worth retaining.
Also, to respond to Jonpatterns' comment, I'm sure there are some slight variances between each agreement signed by each country, but whether those variances are significant needs to be borne out in the sources first, and even if so, more than likely can be covered in the main article or in a sub-article generally discussing the intergovernmental agreements. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP. James500 (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mendaliv: Please explain why you feel this article is a POV Fork. A POV fork is when contributors disagree about the content of an article and create another version of the article to promote a particular point of view. This is not the case here at all. XOttawahitech (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Possibly because he does not understand what a POV fork is. It is perfectly reasonable to have an article on this treaty which describes support for, and opposition to, this treaty, in Canada and the US (as long as it gives due weight relevant viewpoints in Canada and the US). Bear in mind that unless FATCA is part of Canadian municipal law (which would not be the case in England with which I am familiar), the support and opposition in Canada is to this treaty, and any domestic legislation giving effect to this treaty, not to FATCA itself. (I am assuming that the Parliament of Canada will have to pass a piece of legislation to give effect to the treaty). And we probably need an explanation of any domestic legislation giving effect to this treaty. James500 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC) It also occurs to me that Canada might be an unusual case because of the number of Americans living there. The two countries do share a border and use the same language. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prima facie, this article is not a fork at all. The Act of US Congress (FATCA) and the bilateral treaty (FATCA agreement) are, on the face of it, not the same thing. They are separate documents. Whether the content of the article is forked is a different matter. James500 (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That essentially presumes that the FATCA article should be solely about the Act of Congress rather than the system established by the Act and by the bilateral treaties. I don't see any reason to treat them separately. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Prima facie, that article is about the Act rather than any system. That said, if there is little to say about this treaty, it might be better discussed in the article on the Act. James500 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. A treaty between nations is a different instrument than a national statute,and normally, I would argue to keep as a separate article. However, in the case of FATCA, there are a number of bilateral agreements (currently, about a couple dozen), each modeled after one of two model agreements. See the U.S. Treasury Department's FATCA - Archive page. I could see a separate article on FACTA agreements in general, but not on any one individual one. As there is not enough content to justify a separate article at this time, best to just develop the main FATCA article. If the section on FATCA intergovernmental agreements continues to grow, it can then be split out to a separate article. TJRC (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The amount of content in the article is not relevant. What matters is the amount of coverage. There is no point in merging this if we think it is going to be spun off again. The real question is whether this treaty satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this page is a plausible redirect and should not be deleted altogether. James500 (talk) 23:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why is this wp:AfD categorized as Organisation, corporation, or product debate? It is an article about a treaty between Canada and the United States. XOttawahitech (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because there isn't a better category to put it in plus It is technically an organisation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A treaty is not an organisation. This AfD is in the wrong category. James500 (talk) 03:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC) I have added the correct category (society topics). James500 (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Can someone please remove this debate from the category for "organisation, corporation, or product debates" as I am unable to do this? James500 (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question has been expanded since this AfD began. There are, in particular, more sources. James500 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than deleting this article which is about a treaty, NOT about an American Act, why not expand it to include treaties other countries have signed with United States to help it implement the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act? XOttawahitech (talk) 14:32, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would actually be a rename not a keep. Also it doesn't even appear to be an independent treaty rather a bilateral agreement that is covered under a long established treaty as referenced in the bilateral agreement (https://www.fin.gc.ca/treaties-conventions/usa_-eng.asp). Mrfrobinson (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "covered under". Simply amending an earlier treaty doesn't as far as I am aware make it part of that treaty. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you go read the actual bilateral agreement you will see that the FATCA bilateral agreement is authorized by a already established treaty between Canada and the USA. "Article XXVII of the Convention Between the United States and Canada with Respect to Taxes on Income and on Capital done at Washington on September 26, 1980, as amended by the Protocols done

on June 14, 1983, March 28, 1984, March 17, 1995, July 29, 1997, and September 21, 2007 (the “Convention”) authorizes the exchange of information for tax purposes, including on an automatic basis;". Therefore this isn't a new treaty at all rather an agreement based on a treaty. Mrfrobinson (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how authorizing "the exchange of information for tax purposes, including on an automatic basis" includes authorizing a new agreement. Nor is it clear to me why sovereign states would need authorization (from themselves no less) to enter into an agreement. James500 (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just referencing the actual bilateral agreement, it is word for word above. It is not a new treaty it is an agreement based on the provisions on an established one. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Good amount of referencing coverage across multiple varied sources. Also, agree with analysis by Ottawahitech, above. — Cirt (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. James500 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article has been sourced from the following:

Reuters
Financial Post
cbc.ca.
Bloomberg
Random House
CTV
The Hill (newspaper) XOttawahitech (talk) 03:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (one paragraph) to FATCA. Almost all of the article is repeating news articles, rather than summarizing news articles. There may be a paragraph of good information; much of the lead is about other agreements. Possibly rename and repurpose to an article about all the FACTA treaties and agreements, but that would be best done by a merge to FACTA and resplit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems quiet large and notable for having its own page. OccultZone (Talk) 09:36, 17 February 2014 (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.