Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney's tax returns

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mitt Romney's tax returns

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

Clear WP:POVFORK per the rationale given at page creation, which was: "split from Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 to prevent WP:UNDUE issues prior to expansion" Topic not sufficiently notable for standalone article. This article doesn't avoid an UNDUE problem; it creates one. Belchfire-TALK 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork. Truthsort (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I said on the talk page, this is just a POV fork suitable for burying information about Romney's tax returns. Oh, the irony! Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. At only 268 words after two weeks of existence, there's clearly no need for a split-out article on this. It can be handled within Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, moving this text there. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There were good reasons to create a separate article on this subject. When it was in the main article about his campaign it was obvious that a detailed factual article about his taxes was out of place. That it has not been worked on, and has gotten worse rather than better is not a reason to delete it but to improve it. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubs should not remain - this is more silly season stuff. Collect (talk) 12:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it might be POV and is not working. Kafka1115 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge. Not enough notability to support a stand-alone article. Merge content into parent article, delete/re-direct/whatever the present article-link. The only reason anyone is interested in this subject is because Romney is running for the US Presidency, so in my opinion this article should be subsumed into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Shearonink (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV fork, not notable. Hot Stop 15:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Merge Cwobeel (talk) 15:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)~~'[reply]
Keep - The article has developed substantially since this started, and now has compelling and useful information for readers. Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some, Delete the rest. It can always be re-started if and when size considerations warrant. Delete. The subject is adequately covered by this new section in the main article about U.S. tax returns. This article up for deletion is primarily an attack article; for example, you'll find accusations against Romney in the lead by the Democratic governor of Maryland, but nothing about those accusations in the article about the governor. The same was true about the accusations by Harry Reid, until I inserted the material in Reid's article (while toning it down and focussing on what Reid said).108.18.174.123 (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Mutter, mutter, mutter... Carrite (talk) 18:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially the same problem as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech. I'll be a bit upset if this is deleted and that survives, however. --BDD (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Per nom. & others, a POVFORK. Does not warrant a standalone article, but is a notable issue in the Romney 2012 campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, 38 news articles; whether one believes that any of them have significant coverage about the specific subject is debatable. Same can be said if someone creates an article on Obama's college transcripts. Although there are over 1 million regular google hits about the subject, not all are reliable sources, and against it is debatable of those that do fall under RS whether there is enough significant coverage about the subject. There should be an attempt to improve the article before bringing up the article to AfD, to at least support that the subject passes notability guidelines. I would support a merge & redirect at this point to an appropriate article (there are multiple notable subjects if a merge were to occur), however if it can be shown that the subject is clearly independently notable in and of itself I can be persuaded to change my opinion to KEEP.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No. We shouldn't have standalone articles on every campaign attack vector. To the extent this is actually a notable factor in the election, it should be covered in 2012 Presidential election. Ideally, we'd write this stuff after the election, both because it removes the political motivation for editing, and because we'll have a clearer idea of its actual lasting impact, if any. MastCell ^Talk 08:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech‎ should be deleted: it's a POV fork given undue weight by receiving its own article. It should be mentioned as necessary in the campaign article. I'm ambivalent about the need for a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles like this are an embarrassment to the project. Using POV forks to push a political agenda on Wikipedia is not, and never will be acceptable. (despite the fact that it's done blatantly and constantly) Trusilver 16:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unacceptable POV forking of content, placing way too much emphasis on a run-of-the-mill electioneering dispute between camps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 18:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's a bad POV fork in my opinion, as stated above. It does not need a standalone. A wild Rattata (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (hoping for a WP:BOBSLED). Notability is established by the fact that it was rated by PolitiFact.com and is likely to be revisited and rehashed and reexamined for the duration of the campaign. It was also widely reported in the mainstream press. There are reasonable arguments above, saying that we don't want to have an article on every half-baked, debunked accusation that comes out of either political camp. That said, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories exists on wikipedia because it is notable, not because it is true. Maybe we need an article on half baked political accusations in the 2012 POTUS campaign. Then, after the election we can trim out all the WP:RECENTISM. PS, I like that the article name is NPOV, not "Mitt Romney doesn't pay his taxes." Peace, MPS (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason why this is being called a POV fork - it's just the plain simple facts. Romney talks about his tax returns all the time - generally saying that he is not going to release them. Actually, I do object to folks who are very active on the page and on the talk page removing material from the article, and now saying the article should be merged because it is too short. Shame! Smallbones (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - at some point, we have to come to consensus on what individual incidents or issues are notable enough for entry into the project as a separate article. I don't think we are yet at a consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We could do worse than mimicking Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. These individual controversies may pass WP:GNG on a superficial level but have a high susceptibility to hijacking and no real WP:PERSISTENCE. Not that there wouldn't be battles over what to include there, but we'd at least corral off the fighting and minimize AfD's resemblance to Bush v. Gore. --BDD (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obvious POV as stated by others and agree the article should be deleted, not merged. Its WP:Undue weight to a non-notable topic and should not have have its own article and should not be merged as that would also be undue weight. It has a brief mention on the campaign page and that's more than enough to cover it. Its also WP:Recentism. Wikipedia is not a newpaper.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand how WP:UNDUE works. It's not an excuse to merely delete information from Wikipedia. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to something like "tax return controversy"; while the individual tax returns are not themselves important, the controversy over not releasing them is. The rational for it being a POV fork doesn't hold up since it's not exclusively criticism (ie people are defending him not releasing them). The issue has become substantive enough for there to be polls on it and we can easily keep this article while including a smaller section in the campaign article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no controversy, its fabricated, non-substantive, and petty. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The POV fork still holds. It should be deleted. There could be a neutral article on the subject of presidential tax returns in general and the relevant content could be moved there.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While there's an impulse to delete does no one notice that there is significant coverage of the issue? Whatever you think of the issue, there is in fact a huge controversy that made major political leaders respond and was wide enough to have multiple public opinion polls about it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. No need for stub stand-alone, one of many minor attack issues in political campaign. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork. Also Wikipedia is not a newspaper. B-watchmework (talk) 20:50, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article has been considerably expanded during the past 24 hours. Whether that should affect the outcome of this AfD is another question.108.18.174.123 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's just a fulfillment of the prediction I made when I wrote the deletion nomination. Belchfire-TALK 21:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have added a neutral section about this, at the article on tax returns.[1]108.18.174.123 (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful and redirect to the subject's article. This is a likely search term on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this clearly passes WP:GNG. It's been front page news since at least December, 2011. On all the nightly news shows (including Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and multiple stories on the BBC, going back to January with a recent spurt), not to mention the NYTimes, Washington Post, LATimes, Business Week, Forbes, New Yorker. Several million search results on Google. If you think it is a POV fork, you need to improve it, adding sourced content, not removing content as was done before. Smallbones (talk) 04:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this is that this article is being used to bury details that ought to be in the main article. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose the article being put in as a full section in the "campaign" article, but it has to go somewhere. The switching places, then deleting material, inserting some truly irrelevant material on Donald Trump, deleting the 2 sentence reference in the campaign article, etc. does make this article look like there is a case of political sharp elbows going around. But it's an election year, and trying to sort out people's motives is not worthwhile IMHO. Smallbones (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the material in this article does have to go somewhere at Wikipedia. But not even Harry Reid's accusations regarding the tax returns are allowed in the Harry Reid article.[2] Why dump it all on Romney, and none of it on Reid? There is further material about the history of releasing tax returns here (doubtless it too will be deleted in due course, since it isn't dumped on the Romney articles). This subject warrants a paragraph at the Romney 2012 campaign article. Bottom line, this article now up for deletion is not NPOV, and it's redundant (if the info were put where it belongs).108.18.174.123 (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but POV and "redundant" are not reasons to delete. This is a major issue in the Presidential campaign, with the Republicans saying that it is the only Democratic issue. This material will certainly be permanently used on Wikipedia, even if 10 weeks from now, folks start asking themselves "Why didn't Romney just release some more of his tax returns and get an extra 1% of the vote?". Students in tax classes will be reviewing the only available tax return from a private equity multimillionaire. Or people will be wondering why a sitting president doesn't release his current tax returns, as every president has since Carter. In short, somebody in a US presidential campaign seems to be telling a whooper here, and it is very likely to come out who, sooner or later. It would be nice to have the original notable material included in Wikipedia. Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, discredited accusations against a public figure, like the accusations made by Harry Reid, belong in the article of the person making the accusation. I tried to do so, and tried to link to the Reid article from the 2012 Romney campaign article, but was repeatedly reverted. This article about Romney's tax returns is a POV fork, and that's plenty of reason to delete it.108.18.174.123 (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Michelle Obama's arms passed WP:GNG too. Passing GNG doesn't automatically make something encyclopedic or appropriate. Trusilver 16:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did she have sharp elbows? Smallbones (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a clear POVFORK. This is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This article can be re-visited after the election when there is more perspective about the importance of this issue. Letting partisans hijack our encyclopedia to promote their political feuds is certainly something we should stop right now. Yobol (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My reason for originally splitting this off from the original article was to prevent that article from being overwhelmed by WP:UNDUE issues, per WP:PRESERVE.[3] Such a split is entirely permissible per WP:CFORK: "as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." Sure enough, I made a wise decision. We could merge everything back, but I won't stand for deletionists arguing Undue should that occur, per WP:ENC. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As to keep it from overwhelming the MR page. 216.81.94.71 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 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.