Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax cut

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. Merging can be discussed on the talk page if necessary. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Tax cut

Tax cut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

POV fork Dlabtot (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• I think the article is oddly titled, since an article about tax cuts is also implicitly about tax increases. But what's it a fork of? Tax? Tax rate? Bush tax cuts? Taxation in the United States? Pburka (talk) 17:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

All of the above. The article is just a complete mess and contains no content that is not in other articles. Dlabtot (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - The article is a mess, no doubt, but the concept of cutting taxes does deserve its own article. There are immediate, short-term, and long-term economic and sociopolitical effects of a tax cut that are far too detailed to be explained elsewhere. For example, just think of the role that tax cuts play in the psychology of contemporary political campaigns.   — C M B J   17:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see how this is a POV fork. I say this is a valid content fork, since it covers a valid topic, especially in terms of politics and economics.—Chris!_c/t 18:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, clearly notable in its own right. Peter Karlsen (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please cite how this is a relevant or valid topic that isn't covered everywhere else, better. 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep It's a useful article. My general feeling is that it is preferable to fix than to delete and lose potentially valuable content.Tetsuo (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to identify the potentially valuable content that would be lost - that is, content that exists only in this article and not in Tax, Tax rate, Taxation in the United States, et al? Anyway if you are volunteering to try to fix the article, kudos to you. I encourage you to start immediately. Dlabtot (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So your argument is once again that because there is currently little valuable content in the article, we should delete it. AFD is a place to delete articles that violate our inclusion criteria, not a place to get rid of valid articles that require cleanup. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion policy—Chris!_c/t 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not my argument. Which is why it's also not remotely like anything I said. Dlabtot (talk) 04:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you believe the article really discusses a subject distinct from Tax, and is in some fashion salvageable, I encourage you to actually make an effort to save it. Perhaps you could make some edit that actually improves the article. Instead of just asserting that such an edit is possible. Dlabtot (talk) 06:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that the article has problems and telling othes to "go fix it" is not a good argument to make if your goal is to get this deleted. Note that Wikipedia has no deadline. Instead, you should try to explain why this topic is unworthy for inclusion.—Chris!_c/t 16:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This kind of crap might fly in China, but in the US we actually like to have sourceable content. What that means is that when you assert something, you have an independent 3rd party source to back up your claim. Yes, we don't just take people at their word anymore.Antiprogressive (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with deletion?—Chris!_c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Everything. Go read wp:notability, it's covered in there. Antiprogressive (talk) 00:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If getting rid of valid articles that require cleanup is not your position here, then why you keep on telling others to cleanup the article? . Also afd is for discussion of deletion (whether this is a valid topic to be included in this encyclopedia), not for discussion of article improvement.

• delete It's useless. There's no objective basis for any claim the article makes. Better served reading about economic theory than the function of a tax cut. The article makes no sense. How can one generalize that "tax cuts" are Keynesian, specifically? Article is riddled with crappy contributions like that. Antiprogressive (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because an article "is riddled with crappy contributions", that doesn't mean it should be deleted as long as it is a valid subject. Instead, it should be improved. Deletion is actually more counter productive here because it hinders improvement.—Chris!_c/t 20:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Subtracting the fact that you're a moron, how can you show me that this article is productive at all? Also: Please quit with the sockpuppets.Antiprogressive (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling me a moron is not going to get this deleted. Also what you just said violates Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. And what do you mean by "quit with the sockpuppets"? Are you accusing me of using sock?—Chris!_c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Cry more. Yes, it would appear to be that way! Now, can you demonstrate how tax cuts are notable? Which ones, specifically? All of them? Can you list all of the "tax cuts" in history? Would such a list matter? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Delete Reads like a research paper into what some think are the effects of Tax Cuts. The only cited section is that regarding tax cuts in the US, and in general the whole article seems to take a position that Taxes are good, and cutting taxes only helps the rich. Utterly biased and doesn't appear to be fixable. Arzel (talk) 05:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily, we don't delete (non-BLP, non-copvio) articles on notable subjects at AFD due to present bias or other deficiencies in the article, since such problems are considered to be correctable. Peter Karlsen (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but the vast majority of this article is uncited opinion. Remove the uncited opinion and you don't have much of an article anyway. All that is really needed is the first sentence. Arzel (talk) 19:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

But nobody can really deny that tax cut is a valid subject. Tons of other articles of valid subject are in a poor state. Should we delete them all then?—Chris!_c/t 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, unless the goal of WP is to provide worthless information that is nothing more than the opinion of a few editors. WP is not the originator of new thought. Arzel (talk) 22:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Tax cut is certainly not a "new thought". It has been used by governments worldwide to rally political support prior elections and has significant economic impact. I am quite surprised to hear that some here believe tax cut is a new concept.—Chris!_c/t 00:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Arzel did not say, nor imply that '"Tax cut" is a "new thought"'. Nor could that be reasonably inferred from what he said. So you have refuted a strawman of your own invention. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter what he really mean? The thing is nobody here who voted delete has been able to explain why this valid subject should be deleted.—Chris!_c/t 03:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, when engaging in a discussion, it does really matter what people say and what they mean. Ignoring what they said, or refuting points that they did not make or simply asserting that they are wrong, does not move the discussion forward. Dlabtot (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how nitpicking my argument instead of offering a valid reason for deletion "move the discussion forward."—Chris!_c/t 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your argument asserts that it's 'clearly notable.' If evidence of this notability is so prevalent, surely it wouldn't be hard for you to produce? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here has yet cited one valid reason to keep this topic. All the submissions for keep just say "Clearly a valid topic!" If it's so clear, then please be kind and offer some support for your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.124.102 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is the other way around, "nobody here has yet cited one valid reason to delete this topic." As I said already, tax cut is used by governments worldwide to rally political support prior elections and has significant economic impact. So, can someone here enlighten me how tax cut is not a valid encyclopedia topic?—Chris!_c/t 16:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep, very notable on its right. It is political, not just economic like some other articles. Tax cuts are determined by the people through elected representation, non-democracies tend to raise taxes, because there are no elected representatives to oppose it, unless there is an all out revolt. "Economic theory" does not explain that. The article has loads of room for improvement in this dimension, and needs more contribution, instead of calling it "a mess". There are no deadlines too. Surprised to hear there's even a delete notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.36.103 (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation? Or are you just Making Shit Up?Antiprogressive (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

So afd voters have to cite what they said. That's new.—Chris!_c/t 19:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Making baseless claims is not evidence of notability. I suggest you read up on the subject matter. Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep: Clearly notable given the significant media and academic attention the subject has received. There are problems with the article, sure, but they are surmountable. Qrsdogg (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The crap that I took yesterday was notable too, but it doesn't have a wikipedia entry. How can the problems in this article be surmounted? Why haven't you taken the initiative to do it yet?Antiprogressive (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but the crap you took yesterday was clearly not notable at all. And editors don't have to fix the article because Wikipedia has no deadline.—Chris!_c/t 19:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing that you can see the subjectiveness of notability on a shit that I took, yet not on tax policy. How can the problems in this article be surmounted without recreating the tax policy page? How is a tax cut notable? Do all tax cuts count, or just the ones you pick? Antiprogressive (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to Tax policy. Tax cuts are a notable topic, but we've already got an article on this subject with a better name. Since tax cuts are just the other side of the tax hike coin, it doesn't make sense to use this name. The nominator made this discussion more confusing than it had to be by failing to identify what article he or she felt this article was a fork of. If tax policy had been identified in the nomination, I suspect that consensus would have been reached quickly. Pburka (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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.