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 delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Birth tax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be WP:OR - a neologism - so far mentioned only in one source (the one reference). This topic does not exist, nor does it have widespread usage in the common vernacular or peer reviewed studies. No signifigant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only available reference appears to be commentary and not a scholarly work. Fails GNG.

I did request to speedy delete this, , but the admin did not think I presented valid criteria for doing so [1]. How about A 7? Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin. And you could have prodded it. Ribbet32 ( talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
And you could have left the speedy tag in place - how about not trying to make decisions for me, and I will do the same for you. Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Breitbart and similarly intentionally dishonest propaganda trying to accuse Obamacare of being a birth tax (no RSs, no article)
  • Motherjones and a few academic works (granted, ones that wear their politics on their sleeve) arguing that repealing the estate tax is de facto establishing a birth tax (not what this is about, really belongs in Bush tax cuts if anywhere)
  • a passing reference to the repercussions of hypothetically introducing such a tax in Colombia (or other places)
  • references to various kinds of historical birth-related payments to individuals with gov't ties (such as to a state-sponsored midwife or the gov't official who records the birth) as birth taxes
  • economics textbooks vaguely mentioning the idea in passing
This could be notable and I'm open to changing my stance if more sources are found, but at the moment I can't find enough to make a coherent stub out of without some serious WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (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.
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 delete. clear consensus DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Birth tax (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be WP:OR - a neologism - so far mentioned only in one source (the one reference). This topic does not exist, nor does it have widespread usage in the common vernacular or peer reviewed studies. No signifigant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The only available reference appears to be commentary and not a scholarly work. Fails GNG.

I did request to speedy delete this, , but the admin did not think I presented valid criteria for doing so [1]. How about A 7? Steve Quinn ( talk) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I'm not an admin. And you could have prodded it. Ribbet32 ( talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
And you could have left the speedy tag in place - how about not trying to make decisions for me, and I will do the same for you. Steve Quinn ( talk) 19:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Breitbart and similarly intentionally dishonest propaganda trying to accuse Obamacare of being a birth tax (no RSs, no article)
  • Motherjones and a few academic works (granted, ones that wear their politics on their sleeve) arguing that repealing the estate tax is de facto establishing a birth tax (not what this is about, really belongs in Bush tax cuts if anywhere)
  • a passing reference to the repercussions of hypothetically introducing such a tax in Colombia (or other places)
  • references to various kinds of historical birth-related payments to individuals with gov't ties (such as to a state-sponsored midwife or the gov't official who records the birth) as birth taxes
  • economics textbooks vaguely mentioning the idea in passing
This could be notable and I'm open to changing my stance if more sources are found, but at the moment I can't find enough to make a coherent stub out of without some serious WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson ( talk) 00:49, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary ( talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook