Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birth tax


 * 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)

Birth tax

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

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. How about A 7? Steve Quinn (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. And you could have prodded it. Ribbet32 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Delete - Term not widely used and lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Glancing over Google real quick, the categories of sources I'm seeing are:
 * 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)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per NewYorkActuary - If evidence of WP:SIGCOV turns up, let it back in. De Guerre (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Like a lot of proposed bills, this is unlikely to be implemented, and is likely an urban legend. Bearian (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (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.