Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimp 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   merge to Chuck Grassley. The fact that this was clearly well sourced and covered (per the keep voters) but is potentially a neologism with little long-term impact (per the delete voters) are neatly compromised by following Squidfryerchef's suggestion to merge it. The target article does not currently contain any real mention of this event that received substantial coverage at the time. ~ mazca  talk 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pimp Tax

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Please forgive this nomination if submitted in error. I am not certain if this article is needed. It is a stub and refers to a part of a legislative bill. As far as editorial interest, it has not seen a single edit (not even a minor edit) in more than a year. Even after creation, some editors were questioning whether it merited an article. I was going to contact the 2 main editors for this article but both have not edited since 2008.

If deleted, then a possible reason would be insufficient notability as opposed to the full text of the law. If this tax is notable, then perhaps it should be a subsection to the entire bill that was submitted. User F203 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It seems notable enough for a stub based on the article's contents and sources available on Google News. It was proposed and received quite a bit of coverage. I don't think the encyclopedia is made better by deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Keep It is referenced and seems notable enough for a stub. I don't imagine it will grow any larger (it's been around for three years), but there is no advantage to deleting it now. My only concern with it is that it is an orphan. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article name is a WP:Neologism. It has been around since 2006 because it was a neologism associated with a news story in 2006. Yes these words get a mass internet blast when the media decides they like them for the story, but since then, nothing. And WP:NOTNEWS. Polargeo (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete as a nn neologism. Perhaps the bill would be notable, but the article appears to be about the neologism, not the bill. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, and condense to a paragraph within the article Chuck Grassley, on the proposed Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.