Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Tax

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Cbrown1023 23:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Tax[edit]

Virtual Tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. JudahBlaze 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep while the tax law isn't written yet, it is still notable and covered in several different notable sources. The article should be rewritten to discuss the debate rather than the [possible] tax code, however it should not be deleted. Koweja 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are a plethora of sources for this: Legal Affairs, New York Times, Washington Post, San Francisco Chronicle, etc. JChap2007 03:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's speculation until a bill is introduced in Congress and scheduled for a vote, then it would be a proposal. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, reading the text raises the important question "What is a gammer?" B.Wind 06:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, w/ same concerns of Koweja. SkierRMH,09:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As JChap2007 says this has been widely discussed in the popular media thus making it notable. Even if voted down, this proposal was notable for its time and may be of interest to those in the future. Ccscott 11:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an interesting law school hypothetical. The fact that the IRS will assess you on the imputed income received in barter exchanges, including exchanges of intangibles capable of valuation, should appear somewhere in wikipedia (most likely Income tax in the United States) and this topic could be adverted to there. But until this notion leaves the realm of thought-experiment by becoming the subject of proposed legislation or Treasury regulations, it should not have its own article. Pop Secret 12:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: One reason why I am suspicious of this article is exactly what I said above -- I.R.C Section 61(a)(3) already includes "gains derived from dealings in property" in gross income. There won't be any such thing as a separate virtual tax. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pop Secret (talk • contribs) 14:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - crystal ball doesn't mean we can't have information on an important event that's being considered. That way, we couldn't have articles on the year 2100, or space travel, or any such thing which are clearly important concepts for an encyclopedia. However, my only concern is that it's factually true, as people are claiming above; it would be nice if someone could add the sources to the article. -Patstuarttalk|edits 14:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as I see this article in the same light as the Net Neutrality article. Many of us have heard new reports on this kind of this, and there was an article on fark on virtual tax. Just have to search it but I don't have time. Break at work is over --Brian (How am I doing?) 16:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The article provided as a source states "...the Congressional Joint Economic Committee (JEC) is examining the issues involved in imposing real-world taxes on virtual transactions that don't leave the virtual world." It doesn't say anything about actually considering a tax, only looking at the issues involved. While this subject may merit an entry, it would have to be entirely rewritten, as I can't find any basis for the claims in the article. —PurpleRAIN 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and expand. This is a valid topic, but a sub-par entry. Steve Curtis 20:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The information is valid, I don't doubt that, but it belongs in an article on MMORPGs, not in it's own article. I also don't think it will be called the "virtual tax" when and if it's implemented. If anything, we should wait until the tax has a name before it gets an artilce, and maybe not even then (does every type of income tax have it's own article?) Plus, it's ugly. UsaSatsui 22:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Needs a complete rewrite if kept. It has a lot of info in it that I think even most keep voters here would agree needs trimming. savidan(talk) (e@) 23:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no there there. (There are no sources, either.) As I understand it, it's not a proposed law, it's a proposal for a proposed IRS regulation. (Yes, the double-proposal is intended.) Sources for that could be given, but there are MANY proposed IRS regulations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's also unclear whether it's a proposed IRS regulation or a proposed tax on virtual currency within games. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the IRS attempts to collect such taxes, or there is more serious discussion of this issue (although it would be interesting to see if "money" earned in MMORPGs would qualify as income under Glenshaw Glass standard).-- danntm T C 03:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up and expand - Valid topic, but not a very good entry. Needs work. (Cardsplayer4life 09:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Why should the main space become everyone's sandbox? At best it's a wikitionary page. The sources are not associated with the statements. Statements within quotations have spelling errors. For such a short article, I say, if it hasn't been cleaned up by the end of this AfD, delete it. Alan.ca 10:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real proposal discussed with multiple non-trivial mentions in mainstream sources. JASpencer 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely per Arthur Rubin, but also because I have an uneasy sensation that there's some sort of agenda- or POV-pushing here, though I can't put my finger on why I feel this way. WMMartin 17:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this kind of tax is already being used on a game me and me friends play. we discussed it on a blogs in gamespot and many others were saying this tax is already being used. they told me to look it up here because this is where all the information about things like this is at, but i see you all want to delete it. The fact that it hasnt been made a "real tax" doesnt mean that it hasnt been talked about or acctually used already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.85.43.78 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak keep As a concept and idea, has been discussed enough in mainstream information sources for the topic to warrant an article. Sources have been provided. However, the writing isn't clear and the presentation is shallow - more needs to be done if this is going to stay. --Krich (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep as long as it follows WP:V
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_Tax&oldid=1141934261"