Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chapter 61

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 and move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 61[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The term "Chapter 61" yields a wide variety of results, and none of the search results are from independent secondary sources (and not amy of them are about the Massachusetts law for that matter). Article contains no citations, only one external link to the law books. The subject evidently does not pass WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Chapter 61 (Massachusetts). I was able to find a webpage and detailed report written by UMass Amherst. The taxpayer's guide and Forest Tax Program website might also provide useful information. These sources help demonstrate notability. Edge3 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edge3: Unfortunately, the taxpayer's guide and the Forest Tax Program website do not establish notabilty because they are primary sources. If you took the article from the Mass lawbooks that would be the same thing. Since the sources were prepared by the Massachusetts state government, they cannot establish notability in themselves (even with UMass articles - which were prepared by specialists [in that state, who work with state law]). I would urge that you reconsider your vote. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:31, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reports by UMass Amherst / UMass Extension count as independent and secondary sources, in my opinion, because public universities still have some degree of independence from the government. I'm open to considering other perspectives, but I'll also add that we don't cast "votes". My bolded recommendation ("keep and rename") is merely for the convenience of other editors, and the reasoning behind my comments is more important. See WP:VOTE. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are correct that AFD is WP:NOTVOTE. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Taxation in Massachusetts and expand with content from the other articles in Category:Taxation in Massachusetts, which currently has no corresponding primary article (compare Taxation in Missouri). BD2412 T 05:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this move, in addition to my recommended renaming to Chapter 61 (Massachusetts) (above). The ideal destination for this content may be left to the editors working on the affected articles. Edge3 (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Taxation in Massachusetts as per BD2412's excellent suggestion and rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:52, 27 December 2020 (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.