Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ohio Marriage Penalty


 * 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.  Sandstein  20:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ohio Marriage Penalty

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article as it stands has no references from secondary sources, and seems to be on the WP:SYN side of original research, together with some how-to elements and possibly some soapboxing. I believe some sources might well be found, but this article would likely still be the wrong venue for it. I could see this as a section of a possible Ohio state income tax, but there would be nothing here to use as a base, as there is no proper sourcing here. There is a Marriage penalty, which some information here might be included if it were properly sourced. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

How would you suggest the article be rewritten to meet the standards? If you google the concept, you will find only a few articles from a politician who failed to be elected.

I have provided a link to the tax tables for Ohio, and calculated sample differences in the tax rate.. I thought this would quality as 'original research'.

My goal is simply to arouse awareness so that more people in Ohio will be aware of the possibility they might be able to save on taxes by adjusting their filing status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miaminemo (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It's pretty darned rare when the article creator Plaxicos their own nomination, but " If you google the concept, you will find only a few articles from a politician who failed to be elected." just about describes it; non-notable concept only pushed by a desperate candidate with no chance at election. Also, two people cohabiting are always going to be told to contribute their incomes more, so this happens in every state of the Union with an income tax (and federally), nothing unique here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * KEEP Your ignorance is exactly why this concept is needed. Most states do NOT have a progressive tax system that fails to incorporate an adjustment for joint filing status. This is also why neighboring states have included a provision to allow you to file with a different status than they file for federal taxes - illegal in Ohio. Most people in Ohio are unaware of this - as evidenced by the large percentage (51%) of married people who file jointly.
 * To say an article shouldnt be included because there isn't much available information on a topic is ludicrous. I have begun spreading the word, and now even Turbo Tax has added a comment to Ohio filers that they should consider filing seperately. FreeTaxUSA.com has said they will investigate into a note in next years release.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.17 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't even understand what you're saying in an encyclopedic manner at all, and we can't source the usernotes of tax software (which as they are, are more suggestions than anything) for this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As a comment, Wikipedia generally includes a subject if it fits within our notability guideline WP:N, which hinges on substantive discussion on the subject in independent reliable sources. Helping people out with how to file their taxes, though noble, would put this article eerily close to a how to guide, which we are not (see: WP:NOTHOWTO). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Violates WP:NOTESSAY in a big way. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the creator hirself points out, this is original research on a topic that lacks coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2012 (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.