Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Distributive Corporation 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 of the debate was Delete. Note, I interpreted the somewhat ambiguous opinions left by HackJandy and Kmarinas86 as both being Delete. Even without those, however, I'm pretty sure I would have come to the same conclusion, as obvious original research. --RoySmith 17:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Distributive_Corporation_Tax
Original research, nn Mark K. Bilbo 22:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * But couldn't the principle be verfied? Once someone writes down an article about this, I can quote it, and then it's no longer orignal research.  I recommended that anyone put down their opinions as to the quality of the proposal.  Tell us Wikipedians why it may or may not work.  This article needs more participants. --Kmarinas86 23:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Verifiability of the principle is not the issue. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." Mark K. Bilbo 23:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But if it is the thought of others, then it is no longer original thought. --Kmarinas86 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, the notion of a distributive coporation tax is a generic term. I invite people to add their own ideas.  Eventually we have something about distributive corporation tax (although no results for show up "distributive corporation tax" on google. --Kmarinas86 23:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This idea can be seen as a just means of corporate welfare. But I must reiterate, people are free to add whatever to it as they want. See Corporate tax - that is a small page.
 * The interviews mentioned in the article, on the other hand, are original research. For that and the POV/advocacy within the article, Delete. 147.70.242.21 00:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The interviews have been removed by me. --Kmarinas86 00:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not terribly proper to alter the comments of other users. Mark K. Bilbo 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I accidentally removed the vfd when I was adding a definition for "distributive coporation tax" and I don't know to set it back up. --Kmarinas86 00:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but an encyclopedia is just not the venue for original research. And the Wikipedia has policy on this (see: WP:NOT). Mark K. Bilbo 00:43, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that Wikipedia cannot be a primary source, do I understand that correctly? However, wikipedia is promoting it's own research about Wikipedia itself.  The main difference is that they are more than one person, and they run the site.  Once somebody adds to the article, and yes they can add references, so can I.  Then it's no longer just a proposal, instead, it becomes an article that is rigrously grounded in references and examples.  The "proposal" should be turned into an "example".  --Kmarinas86 00:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not the one to discuss Wikipedia policy with. Maybe you should take up Peyna's suggestion below and visit the policy discussion page. Mark K. Bilbo 01:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * One of the several things that our no original research policy addresses is the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It isn't an academic journal or a thinktank.  It has no facilities for performing peer review of new research, new ideas, new concepts, new analyses, new interpretations of data, and so forth.  Wikipedia is not the place for you to write up your idea for a new tax and then ask for other people to review that idea and to add to or to modify it.  It's an encyclopaedia.  Its articles deal with ideas for which that process of review and refinement has already taken place somewhere else. Uncle G 03:49, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not require the references to be "peer reviewed" references as in peer review by scientists in a certain field. But they can be from legitimate sources, such as books or magazines which dicuss the same issues.  There has been a problem with the corruption of Coroporate Welfare by the government.  The equation:$$\frac{profit}{sales}*\frac{profit}{expenses}*\frac{x}{100} = Corporate Tax$$ $$Personal and Family Income Tax = 0%$$ Is one possible example for solving the problem of "corporate taxes" and how they influence inflation by not adjusting to the financial demands of employees' (expenses).  I'm sure there are more Economics sources for which this has been discussed for before.  When a concept is supported by more than a few, then it can no longer be considered as new as it once was.  Newness is rather temporary, and eventually this article will not be new anymore, and it may have people making references to it, further justifying the article's existence.  You realize that this encyclopedia "Wikipedia" is not finalized, as all encyclopedias are edited and reviewed before they are published.  Wikipedia cannot be compared exactly to an book encyclopedia simply because the fact is that editing and reviewing by other members doesn't stop unless access to the website is unavailable.  There is no point where we go, "Let's publish Wikipedia it's finished".  That is the definition of peer review, of articles in an encyclopedia, not a finished encyclopedia where editing and revision is reserved for next year's edition.--Kmarinas86 13:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Requiring that ideas be peer reviewed before they have articles here is exactly what Wikipedia requires. Uncle G 00:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR. If you have a problem with the policy, take it up at the policy discussion page Peyna 01:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems this was something our author prepared for a class and thought he might try to put on Wikipedia as evidenced here: . If you think your original idea has some merit, submit it to a scholarly journal and see if they publish; even then you'd be risking falling short of what is encyclopedic. Peyna 14:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting article... but the OR has to go. Either verify some of the data with some resources or I am voting for Delete. HackJandy 02:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Affirmative--Kmarinas86 02:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we have a definition for original research and this appears to meet it. The external link does not appear to establish a source. Gazpacho 00:37, 30 November 2005 (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.