Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overtaxation of the United States

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. ✗plicit 12:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overtaxation of the United States[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)

By its entire nature, this is an opinion editorial, not a neutral encyclopedic topic. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 11:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the POV-wash starts at the article title and never goes away. Tony (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously just the creator's opinion. Indeed, the word "overtaxation" in the title makes it pretty hard to make an article that meets WP:NPOV, and the prose is definitely not neutral. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 11:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure WP:SOAPBOX. - Ahunt (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinion piece - not neutral - and factually incorrect (claimed "during the Clinton Administration, the citizens were being taxed at a record high of 40% of income" but in the Reagan years the top rate was 50% and in the 1970s the top rate was 70%, and in 1944 the top was 94%) - the source used actually does not back up claim either and also actually states "for the vast majority of families, taxes are as low or lower than they have been in the past 20 to 30 years". Lastly all the examples are for Democratic presidents showing a clear bias - for instance during the Hoover administration as a Republican the top rate in 1931 of 25% to 63% in 1932 (or 56% for the same >100K range). KylieTastic (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unadulterated non-fact. :AsyarSaronen (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As others have said, is clearly editorial. ForsythiaJo (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is inherently and irretrievably written from a very specific point of view. It could not be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV. Grachester (talk) 16:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and others. Clearly non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Sal2100 (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yep - an opinion piece. Nuff said. Rupples (talk) 01:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the taxes are indeed too damn high, this collection of isolated claims about them is not an encyclopedia article, and I aver that it would be impossible for it to become one. jp×g 09:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The person who loves reading (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2023 (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.