Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horses and Taxes

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 delete JForget 01:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Horses and taxes

Horses and taxes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

We're not a how to guide. Kwsn (Ni!) 03:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The article could be considered either a personal essay or a page of legal advice. Either way, it's not an encyclopedia article, and it's difficult to imagine it being revised to make it into an encyclopedia article. Further, it has narrow geographic scope (US only) and seems to have been written as a bit of a joke (e.g., the line that says "not to be confused with keeping a hobby horse"). --Orlady (talk) 04:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete as WP:OR, WP:BOLLOCKS, possible WP:HOAX, WP:NOT#HOWTO, etc. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Maintain. This is an encyclopedic entry about one type of tax shelter: a horse-related venture. This is a fairly common method of tax avoidance in the United States and therefore merits a listing in an encyclopedia. I have edited it a bit to make it less like a how to guide and more like an overview of the two ways in which a horse-related activity can provide an owner with tax benefits (i.e., either as a hobby activity under IRC § 183 or as a for profit activity according to the guidelines set forth in Treasury Regulation 1.183-2 and the common law related to that provision). (Andeclercq (talk) 04:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)).
• Strong Delete: This "article" clearly does not belong on WP. It should be deleted per WP:NOT#HOWTO and WP:OR. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete I'm with Orlady--if there's an encyclopedia article to be written on this topic, I don't see it. Too bad there isn't a speedy for this. Blueboy96 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the many comments above, but let's point the creator to WikiBooks : ) - jc37 (talk) 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. A short mention in the article Tax shelter will be enough. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 10:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete & close - per nomination. Rudget.talk 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Rudget.talk 19:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Please don't confuse speedy deletion, which has specific criteria, and the snowball clause, which doesn't. --Dhartung | Talk 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as OR, or a how-to, perhaps, and unencyclopedic. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Whether its OR or a how-to, to borrow the quote about pornography, I know it when I see it. Xymmax (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per many previous comments. —ScouterSig 22:49, 19 November 2007 (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.