Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation


 * 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. Pretty clear delete consensus here, so not much to say about the close itself. I do want to mention that the "The article for the author has been deleted three times" comment seems a little disingenuous. That makes it sound like it's been voted off the island in three separate AfDs, which isn't the case at all. It had a single AfD, and two speedy deletes of recreations. That doesn't really change the result here. Just saying. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

probably non-notable book -- disguised promotional article for the non-notable author.  DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep Updated and referenced the article accordingly. The author is very notable and is a senior bureaucrat. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The article for the author has been deleted three times, see Sibichen K Mathew Jonpatterns (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha §§ {T/C} 14:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Delete Though one may see plenty of references, none suffices the "Significant coverage" part. Many of them are not reliable. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 14:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article is about the book which is indeed notable. The author is also notable but not as notable as the book it self. The article earlier had some material on the author which I have deleted. The book has had significant coverage from the media and reviews from towering academic and judicial personalities. This book is a ""Academic and technical book" and it serves a very different function and come to be published through very different processes than do books intended for the general public. They are often highly specialized, have small printing runs, and may only be available in specialized libraries and bookstores". I agree that most of the references may not fall under "significant coverage" but since this an academic and technical book which has had reviews from great personalities, I think it needs to stay on Wikipedia. The subject of the book is key here as it is one of the world's first study on invasion of a tax agency into private lives and it's sociological and economic effect. The book is also cataloged and mentioned in the Library of Congress Parts of the book are also in consideration to be added to the taxation curriculum in the National Academy of Direct Taxes. Uncletomwood (talk) 16:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete inadequate evidence for notability . This is not a highly specialized book at all, and if notable wold be widely recognized, That the subject is important is not a reason for an article on the book, but a reason to use the book as a reference in an article on the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment CAN A NOMINATOR VOTE ALSO?. This is indeed a Highly Specialized Book as it goes into the economic sociological impact of taxation, which in my opinion is highly specialized enough. Since this is highly specialized it is not going to be commercially very notable. But this book has got a decent amount of press coverage as well as reviews from Judicial Personalities, Newspapers and International Peer Review Journals. Highly Specialised books which are academic in nature are never very widely notable. The approach of the author in dissecting the compliance issues with an interdisciplinary perspective is not only unique in this area of study but is highly specialised and this can be evident from the published reviews of the book .The book also presents the results of two empirical studies which have never been conducted before. This is the World's first study to analyze the causes and consequences of tax evasion and income tax raids as perceived by the taxpayers themselves.This book is of great policy relevance and talks are on to add chapters of this book to the taxation curriculum in the National Academy of Direct Taxes. The main contention of the nominator was of the non-notability of the author since there was unnecessary material on the author on the page. I have fixed that  by deleting the unnecessary material, the author is notable but that is not the topic here since the page is about the book. What the closer of the debate, should judge is the notability of this 'Highly Specialised and Technical Book', which indeed has notability for the reasons stated in my two comments.Uncletomwood (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of the references are incorrect for example this sentence-
 * Making People Pay:The Economic Sociology of Taxation has featured in several lists - including The Hindu and the Crossword Book Store Chain lists.
 * Cites goodreads (a public review forum) and what appears to be a list of people - it doesn't mention the book but says 'Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer, Sibichen K Mathew has been deputed as Advisor in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) at the regional office of Bangalore for a period of two years.'. It should cite the link to something saying The Hindu and Crossword had the book as a best sellers.  There's a bunch of cites at the end of the paragraph but I'm not going to check everyone.Jonpatterns (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agrees. I'll see to it that the citations are properly listed out in the article. But those citations do exist, if a closer look has been given. Also most of the peacock words and other insignificant references and words have been removed from the article. The book is definitely notable because of it's subject, high technical nature and published reviews and coverage Uncletomwood (talk) 07:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Nice attempt, but I agree the refs are very poor. Unnotable journals, websites, most of it seems to stretch the definition of mainstream coverage or even reliable niche coverage too far. Sadly, this does look like an attempt to advertise. If any reliable sources are analyzed here, please ping me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Mainstream references are rare for 'Highly specialized and Technical books'. The journals and websites are definitely notable and do come as reliable coverage. In India, at least these journals and websites provided are reliable. I also have made an attempt to properly cite. Uncletomwood (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Reviewing Wikipedia's book notability guidelines, the one that seems most possible for this work is #4: "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." Is there any evidence to back up the claim that this book is being used for instruction in India or elsewhere? Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 12:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I could not get an exact link but I have added a citation that says, the author lectured at the NADT, the ISEC and the ISME on his book for the taxation course. Uncletomwood (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2014 (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.