Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Hood 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   keep. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Robin Hood tax

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

G11, A10 Cosmic Cube (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. No clear rationale for deletion given.  Whilst the article may have issues these can be cleared up by editing.  Certainly I dont see that an article with a section on unintended consequences, can qualify as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion".  I assume the duplication of an existing topic refers to Tobin Tax.  Given that the article discusses the difference between the two, I don't see this being a valid reason for deletion either. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not unambiguously promotional: in fact the article discusses possible disadvantages at some length. Previously Cosmic Cube tagged the article for speedy deletion, citing similarity to Tobin Tax as one reason, but the two, although related, are by no means the same. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. My apologies for any confusion. I am unfamiliar with how this process is supposed to work. Please read my detailed comments on the Discussion page (not the project page) for the reasoning. Cosmic Cube (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, but first investigate. I believe the article is advertising for a political cause, tied in with a high budget publicity campaign involving a big-budget video.  I also believe the article was written by a staff member of Oxfam, which is behind the publicity campaign.  For a chronology, see my talk page, which cites specific users involved, including the original author who admits to interning at Oxfam and learning to use Wikipedia to promote their causes.  Also, I believe the articles Tobin tax, Currency transaction tax, and Financial transaction tax are related parts of the same campaign.  Note: not all editors of these articles are necessarily part of the "cause".Oldtaxguy (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: if you spend millions of £, you can create a "social phenomenon", as Oxfam has done.  That does NOT make it notable.  The secondary sources on the RHT article are tainted:  one (McQuaig article) appeared in the Toronto online paper BEFORE the news being covered happened.  That makes the source unreliable as to this item, even though the overall newspaper may remain reliable.  Most of the other secondary sources use wording taken directly from the RHT website and press releases.  That's hardly reliable either, just data laundering.  Note that my vote is strongly DELETE (in spite of what the statistics are saying).Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep (from Boyd Reimer) - Below I address the two rationale provided for this request for deletion:

1. Addressing the rationale of "G11 - Unambiguous advertising or promotion":

This Wikipedia policy states that "In general, notability is measured by whether the topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic.

"Robin Hood tax" (RHT) has received, and is receiving, significant amounts of that type of coverage. Therefore it is a phenomenon of society. Therefore it qualifies to be in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon.

If there is bias, then I suggest marking it with tags (specific to the section in which the bias occurs). But the existence of bias is no reason to delete an entire article which is receiving the necessary coverage from reliable secondary sources.

2. Addressing the rationale of "A10 - Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic":

On Feb 11, 2010, in this discussion in the Tobin Tax page, there was a suggestion that there be a new section of the Tobin tax article which would deal with the "Robin Hood tax."

As you can see in that discussion, for reasons of clarity, and for reasons of article length, I objected to an unclear eponym being introduced into the already long article of the Tobin tax.

However when Robin Hood tax (RHT) appeared as a separate article, I did not object because this satisfied my desire to keep the Tobin tax article under the maximum size required by Wikipedia policy.

My desire for clarity in the Tobin tax article was still satisfied because the RHT article was independent and outside the Tobin tax article.

As long as it was not me who was facing the task of explaining another eponym to readers, I was satisfied. (Notice how I did not do much work on the RHT article.)

In the last four and a half months RHT has received a lot of press coverage, and therefore deserves to be a encyclopedia article.

But if it is deleted as an independent article, then what frightens me now is the prospect of being obligated to somehow incorporate it into the Tobin tax article which is already too long. That "obligation" would come from the fact that it has received enough press to qualify to be in Wikipedia somewhere. But if that "somewhere" ends up being the Tobin tax article then I will strongly object on the grounds that the Tobin tax article is already too long.

I have had extensive discussion with the editors of Tobin tax on how subdivide it to reduce its size. But these discussions ended without a clear consensus (so far). See those discussions here.

That lack of consensus is even more reason for me to want to keep as much material as possible separate from the Tobin tax article. That way I don't have to face another huge discussion on how to subdivide the Tobin tax article.... (...nor a discussion on how to subdivide the Financial transactions tax article, which, incidentally may soon grow to be just as large as the Tobin tax article.)

3. Robin Hood tax as an unclear but nevertheless legitimate societal phenomenon (as a proposal)

The Robin Hood tax is, in my eyes, an unclear societal phenomenon: It relates partly to the Tobin tax, partly to a currency transaction tax, and partly to a financial transaction tax. Nevertheless it is a legitimate topic for an encyclopedia. Just because it is unclear, doesn't mean that society doesn't treat it as a phenomenon. The fact that it is a societal phenomenon means that it deserves a place in an encyclopedia which records societal phenomenon. Here are other examples of unclear phenomena which are unclear, but which deserve an entry in an encyclopedia: Quantum mechanics, religion, etc. Notice how religion relates partly to an individual quest for spirituality, partly to traditional culture, etc. Yet the topic of "religion" is not merely a subsection of the encyclopedia entries for spirituality, nor culture. Each has its own article. - Boyd Reimer (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cosmic Cube (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @ Pit-yacker: Response
 * @ JamesBWatson: Response


 * @ Boyd Reimer: Some points:

1. "Robin Hood tax" is just a marketing name for a call for a financial transactions tax by various organizations (such as Oxfam, the group responsible for writing the original version of the Robin Hood tax article). As such, there is no need for it to have an independent article. Any material that is non-promotional fits into the scope of the Financial transactions tax article.

2. In the interim, I have thought about the issue of dividing the Tobin tax article and I think we could split it into two sections: economic and political. Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction
For ease of reference I am posting my comments from the Discussion page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robin_Hood_tax). Please also see Oldtaxguy's user page for further material on this.

Original Comments

 * Thanks to Oldtaxguy for his extensive work on this. I would like to summarize his lengthy findings and add a few points:


 * This page attempts to use Wikipedia for the purpose of advertising, a violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. It was created by 389melanie who is (or was) an intern for Oxfam. Please note that I am not violating any policies regarding outing as she is the one who willing revealed her own identity by publishing a link to her own blog on her user page (http://melaniesblog.usual.ca). In a post on her blog (Ox Tales, dated October 28, 2009), she indicates that part of her job is to “write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages” on Wikipedia. I am archiving that post here for posterity:


 * "I’ve now been interning for Oxfam for 3 weeks (or 3 sets of 3 days if you’re being pernickety) and it’s fast becoming a lot of fun. I’m doing 3 projects for them, all of which are cool in their own way."


 * "I’m doing the communications with some activists which Oxfam trained at a program called ‘Change’ and the evaluation for the event itself. As well as being really good training for me jobwise, doing this is amazingly encouraging. I’m in prime position to hear about all the awesome things these guys are doing and all the great societies that are campaigning for really worthwhile causes. It’s been proving to me that all the little things do matter – that signing petitions or making small changes in your lifestyle really can make a difference. Love it."


 * "The other completely awesome thing I’m doing is learning to use Wikipedia, so that I can write articles and edit the Oxfam related pages. This pretty much feeds all the ‘things Melanie loves to do channels’ – reading, writing, researching, learning new things, being on the internet etc, so it’s been amazing fun. Now all I need to do is work out how to get paid for doing this and my life will be complete! I’m also doing some venue research for Oxfam Live, which has turned out to be more rewarding than I initially expected it to be. As with anything of this nature it’s a lot of phone calls and checking details. However, during my research I did talk to some really cool people. It made me happy to have conversations with people who were just nice, helpful, friendly and pleased that Oxfam was showing an interest in their venue. Made the whole thing feel more personal and pleasant."


 * "I’m also starting to really enjoy getting to know all the people I’m working with. Today I had lunch with one of the members of my department who I didn’t know very well, but she saw me sitting by myself and asked me to join her and her companions. I had a really pleasant lunch and learned a bit more about her work. There are loads of other people who I chat too in passing. Actually, there’s no one I’ve met so far who I wouldn’t be very happy to chat to or have lunch with. Everyone’s talented, interesting and ethically minded. It’s a great place to work."


 * 389melanie created the article on Wikipedia on March 18, 2010. This was followed by 9 edits on March 22, 2010 by an IP address (193.133.69.201) that belongs to Oxfam UK. Examining the original article clearly indicates that it took all of its source material verbatim from the site for the Robin Hood campaign. Seeing as how Oxfam is one of the organizations behind this campaign, this is clearly a case of a group creating a Wikipedia article for its own promotional reasons and is a violation of policy (for example, “Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so” under WP:NOTADVERTISING).


 * There is not much point in attempting to rewrite this article. The material will fall into one of two categories:


 * 1. Discussion of merits: There is nothing here that has not been or cannot be covered in one of articles Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax.


 * 2. Promotional material: This is a violation of Wikipedia policy and all such material should be expunged.


 * Since all of the category #1 material is covered in other articles, the only remaining material is from category #2, which is inappropriate for an article. Moreover, Wikipedia editors are not unpaid lackeys for Oxfam. It is not our job to rewrite their articles for them. Therefore, this article is best deleted.

Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination and subsequent discussion are incoherent and we have better things to do than make sense of this gibberish. In so far as there seems to be a problem, it can be addressed by normal editing and so, per WP:BEFORE, If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the article... since we cannot delete this left wing lunacy in RL. East of Borschov 10:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

1. This article was created by Oxfam as a means of promotion.
 * Response to Cosmic Cube's post on my talk page:
 * Although this may come under WP:COI, I don't see this as a reason to delete the article.

'':2. Check the earliest version of the article when the editors were Oxfam personnel (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robin_Hood_tax&oldid=351390397). You can see here that the material is unambiguously promotional. The material was directly copied from the Robin Hood tax website. Even the "Arguments against the tax" material comes directly from their FAQ.''
 * What a page looked like in the past can't be an argument to delete. If we deleted articles on what their first edit looked like, 90% of the articles on Wikipedia would disappear overnight.

'':3. All the material covered here that is not promotional is covered in other articles: Tobin tax, Financial transaction tax, or Currency transaction tax. In particular, the material on unintended consequences is in Tobin tax. Moreover, the Robin Hood tax is just a marketing name for a Financial transaction tax. Therefore, the substantive material is covered elsewhere, leaving only promotional material remaining.''
 * Whilst there may be duplication with other articles, it does seem that there is a good degree of publicity in the media of the organisation/movement. Whether or not these are recycled press releases (very common for the press these days) is probably irrelevant as a number of high profile titles have decided that this organisation is notable and of enough interest to run the story.  It doesn't even particularly appear that titles running the stories are isolated to those you would expect to be sympathetic to the cause (such as the Left of Centre Guardian).  The Daily Telegraph for example, is firmly in the right of centre camp (often nicknamed the Torygraph).  In fact, the article contains references from all of Britain's national broadsheets, which is much better than the typical pile of populist rantings from the tabloids like The Mirror, Wail, Sun, etc.

'':4. You state that these issues can be cleaned up by editing. However, I feel it is inappropriate for Oxfam to put up a promotional article on Wikipedia and then expect the editors here to serve as unpaid labor for their marketing campaign by "cleaning it up".''
 * If the article was irredeemably marketing material, and there was no prospect of writing an article without it, then deletion would be appropriate. However, as previously noted, the article is no longer unambiguous marketing material. Pit-yacker (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Snowball Keep Long comment  for the benefit of Cosmic Cube and OldTaxGuy,  both fairly new editors who seem to have misunderstood how our guidelines apply to this sort of article, allbeit they have good motivations in wanting to protect the encylopedia. On A10 concern:  while there is some overlap with other articles, this is in the same way that say our article on the Proton overlaps with Subatomic particle.  There are tens of thousands of sources for RHT, many complete articles in top newspapers entirely dedicated to this tax,  81 hits for "Robin Hood Tax" in the Financial Times alone. On G11 concern:  Having read scores of whole sources on this if anything our article is biased against the tax. We'd arguably being doing the campaign a favour if we deleted the article, as we have far more criticism than the vast majority of soruces, most of which are very favourable.   True the article was started by someone with a connection to Oxfam, but that isnt a COI issue unless the creator tried to take ownership of the article, especially if they also also tried to hide their COI. Neither is the case, almost no trace of the creators original work remains and in fact she welcomed others to editor the article, and hasnt objected to any of the changes. If it werent for the fact that CC and OTG are new editors the suggestions of collusion and untoward editing from obviously very honest, collaborative and talented contributors such as Melanie and Boyd would be highly objectionable.  If possible please can the closing admin confirm that the arguments of Pit-Yacker and Boyd are policy based and that there is no credible case for the tags added to the article? FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Now that I have read through it, the original article does just seem like inexperienced article creation – so I will take my COI tag back off. A point that no one appears to have made yet, is that deleting this up-dated article as it now stands  by wiki- lawyering would increase Systemic bias by which North American marketing campaigns alone appear to be immune from AfD's on WP. At least I can't remember one that's been deleted. IMHO this should never have been AfD'ed.--Aspro (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambiguation page only. Most of the material on Oxfam's "Robin Hood tax" should be removed as advertising, and the rest merged into financial transaction tax.  However, the multiple taxes called a "Robin Hood tax" should have some uses.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no doubt whatever that the original version of the article was written with the intention of being promotional. However, we are not here to assess either the original version of the article or the motives of its authors. We are here to assess firstly the present version of the article, and secondly whether any faults it has can reasonably be rectified. The present version is somewhat promotional in tone, but nowhere near enough to justify a G11 speedy deletion, as the nomination suggests. The concept has received plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so it warrants an article. If the article it warrants is not the present article then the constructive approach is to rewrite it to give a more balanced coverage, rather than to delete it. It was I that declined the speedy deletion request, and nothing I have read above gives me any reason to change my mind. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Totaly agree. I'd hope most who can spare a few hours reading the sources would agree that if anything the article is unbalanced in having too much criticism.  The global context for this tax is a world where G20 goverments have just agreed on  ambitous medium term targets for deficit reduction, and if they cant increase tax revenues this means cutting public spending that hundreds of millions of low income families rely on. Together with the current popular mood against banks, its hardly suprising that most of the quality sources have adopted a positive tone when covering this campaign.  Some of us may feel its undesireable for the wealthy to have to forfeit wealth to help the poor,  but as editors our job is not to push our own POVs but to neautrally reflect whats being said in the sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would like to begin by thanking all editors for their opinions (with one exception). I will address everyone who responded in order.
 * @Colonel Warden: Your response is just rude. My contributions here are in good faith. I see no reason for you to insult me or anyone else in this discussion. If you can't abide by Wikipedia's standards of civility, then don't participate in the discussion. See WP:CIVIL for further reading.


 * @East of Borschov: I am not entirely sure what this comment means. If you are referring to the fact that this issue is a social phenomenon of some note, then this has some merit. I will say more about that below.


 * @Pit-yacker: Let me clear up a misunderstanding. My purpose in showing what the article looked like originally was only to demonstrate that this piece was unambiguously created as promotional material by Oxfam. I don’t think that is in dispute now by anyone here.


 * What this means is that the present version of the article should not exist at all. It should not have been allowed to come this far and should have been deleted immediately upon creation. I feel it is an abuse of Wikipedia to allow any group (Oxfam or otherwise) to create a promotional article and then expect the rest of us to work as unpaid labor on their article by bringing it up to encyclopedic standards, particularly when the substantive material is already covered by other articles. That merely relegates us to the role of doing their promotional work for them.


 * Of course, this is only clear in hindsight since all of this only came to light recently due to Oldtaxguy's efforts. However, that shouldn't stop us from doing the right thing now and acting to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. An example should be set to demonstrate to any group on any side of any issue that Wikipedia should not be considered as part of their marketing campaigns.


 * @FeydHuxtable: Your analogy does not apply here. The proton is a special kind of subatomic particle so it deserves to have its own article. The same is true for the photon, muon, electron, etc. What should not be present, however, is a second article about general subatomic particles.


 * Let's consider a facetious thought experiment. Imagine I run a group aimed at promoting physics education in high schools. I start a new campaign called "Really Small Things" with the aim of establishing programs to teach subatomic physics to high school students. I then create a Wikipedia article called “Really Small Things” where I proceed to discuss exactly the same material covered in the article on subatomic particles.


 * That is what is happening here. The Robin Hood tax is just a marketing synonym for a financial transaction tax. Oxfam should not be allowed to create a separate article for that and, in fact, is not allowed to according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTADVERTISING: "Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.").


 * Now, it may so happen that there is sufficient press coverage to warrant some mention somewhere on Wikipedia. However, the proper place for this is in a subsection of the financial transactions tax article. The analogous situation in my silly thought experiment would be making note of my Really Small Things campaign in a subsection of an article on groups involved in science education.


 * One last point of clarification that requires mention: I never suggested that Boyd Reimer was in collusion with 389melanie. It is inappropriate for you to claim that I did so. What I did was to highlight (on Oldtaxguy's user page a message that you placed on 389melanie's page demonstrating your political support for her efforts. That is a form of activism on Wikipedia and support for Oxfam. I don't think there is anything objectionable about pointing out your published statements:


 * "Hi, just wanted to apologise in case youre still watching the Robin Hood Tax article you created and feel Ive gone overboard in compromising with the objectors. Your original article was very well written and informative, but it didnt meet all our guidelines, mainly as it was sourced largely to the robin hood site itself rather than secondary sources like independent news papers. The campaign has lost much of its high level support for now, and it looks like opinion among decision makers has generally swung in a deflationary direction. But this cannot possibly last for more than 3 – 4 years considering the massive levels of public debt and the increasing ineffectiveness of anti progressive propaganda. When events swing back in a pleasing direction they'll move with some force. Keep the faith! FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)"


 * @Aspro: The article may have been written by an inexperienced editor but the fact remains that she did this as part of her duties for Oxfam. That is definitely a form of conflict of interest.
 * This non sequitur has already been addressed -why  parrot on  mindlessly?  Why do you think mere repetition adds weight.--Aspro (talk) 22:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Arthur Rubin: I would agree with this. Any material that is not covered in other articles (i.e. press coverage) can be put into a subsection of the financial transaction tax article.


 * @JamesBWatson: The speedy deletion comment is not relevant any longer. As I stated on your talk page, I believe that I might have used the incorrect process for deletion. I am not familiar with how it is supposed to work so I simply went with the instructions that were easiest to understand which just happened to be the speedy deletion process (since it only involves inserting a single tag, versus the various hoops required for the process here).

Thanks again to those editors who offered constructive responses. Cosmic Cube (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * CosmicCube, as per quality sources in the article, RHT has been supported by around  350 economists including several from the first rank like Joseph Stiglitz and Jeffery Sachs. Leading politicians supporting the tax include Angela Merkel,  Nicolas Sarkozy and Katsuya Okada, Japan's foreign minister. From the financial sector, support has been forthcoming by prominent figures including George Soros, Warren Buffett and Lord Turner.  There are many more equally impressive A listers that could be mentioned.


 * By analogy to your "Really Small Things" campaign, if RST had received backing from top physicists, eductors and Industrialists from sectors which apply sub atomic physics then yes wed likely have an article on it. Beacause like RHT the campaign would have massive coverage in quality sources.


 * The RHT tax is very much a special type of transaction tax. Many other types of transaction tax, both theorectical and those that have actually been implemented have been designed to reduce volatility or throughput of transactions and not primarily to raise revenue like RHT. Another difference is most of the other taxes have been decided on behind close doors and not campaigned for by a vast coalition of civil society actors. A 3rd is most transaction taxes have never been intended for global application.


 * I didnt say you specifically accused Boyd and Melanie of colluding, sorry if it came across like that. I didnt even think the specific allegation of collusion against myself needed refuting. My post on Melanies page was just in case shed feel discouraged by the criticism of her original work, which I had partly agreed with. As a wiki otter I dont like to see new editors being discouraged, and for a similar reason I posted my advice on oldtaxGuys page in a respectful and hopefully encouraging tone.  My personal opinion about this tax is that a lot of the criticism is valid. Im the editor who has added most of the strongest sources against the tax! So while I support taxing the wealthy in general its not really correct to say I support this particular tax, though I am interested in it and want us to have a good, reliable and encyclopedic article.


 * While this has been a high quality debate, it would be good to see some sources to support the anti RHT position. If for example the campaign has somehow coerced almost every single British quality newspaper to write an advertisement in the guise of regular journalism,  surely some investigative journalist will have picked up on it?   FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @Aspro: An intern for an advocacy group starts up a promotional article as part of her duties. That is a pretty clear case of conflict of interest. I don't know what else I can say to make that clearer.
 * Furthermore, why do you feel the need to label my efforts mindless? I began by writing up some comments with my concerns (under Original Comments above). I then took the time to write summary versions of these comments to place on the talk pages of some of the original responders, one of whom posted that summary here. I then proceeded to reply to the comments of each person who gave me feedback. In short, I have treated everyone here with respect. I would expect the same courtesy from you.


 * If you have nothing further to contribute to this discussion other than insults, then please refrain from any further participation. See WP:CIVIL [in particular, Section d of Direct Rudeness: belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen")]. The same applies to Colonel Warden.


 * OK I'll rephrase it. It should only take a little thoughtfulness to remember that it is an error of reasoning  to judge the virtue of something by its source (which I think belongs to the class of General Fallacies). As has been repeated here and in  past years -many useful/informative/etc  articles were started off by knowledgeable insiders . In this case, there now appears nothing to lead me to believe that there was any attempt to mislead. So,  now that we know, there is no longer any need for the  COI tag. Also, now that we know,  interested editors can bring the article  towards WP standards. WP articles are always considered to be  “work in progress” even when locked, so it would also be wrong to judge it as it is now.


 * As for the efforts to use rhetorical shifting  to class it as blatant  adversing.
 * We have an article on Hamburgers and an article on McDonaldland; an article on sweet corn and one two on that big green fellow Jolly Green Giant; Green Giant.I'm sure people will be able to think of other examples.  Nothing here so far appears to gives any well reasoned argument as to why we should have one article on the financial transaction tax but no  article about one of the social phenomenons to arise from it.  Rather it is just the same old rhetoric repeated over and over in different ways.  (If anyone wants to look for articles that are really worth taking to AfD one needs to look no further than the north American eating places. E.g.,  Roscoe Diner, Tom's Restaurant and so on and so on).--Aspro (talk) 08:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @FeydHuxtable: Thanks for your comment regarding the collusion. I accept your statement as an apology. Sorry if I was a bit prickly. I don’t like being accused of things I haven’t done.


 * I appreciate your feedback and will follow up on your other comments shortly. Cosmic Cube (talk) 03:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whoever started the article, and for what reason, really doesn't matter now. This topic is clearly notable on its own merits, is deserving of an article, has masses of coverage from reliable sources. The COI issues have been addressed by simple editing, which is how they should be fixed - COI isn't a reason for deletion on its own, it merely warns us that a)the subject might not be notable and b)to be alert to any bias in the article. Neither of these apply in this case. Definite keep for me. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @FeydHuxtable: This is not a question of support vs. opposition for a Robin Hood Tax. It is a question of whether or not Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as part of a marketing campaign (the original article had links to the campaign website, Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Youtube!). I believe strongly that Wikipedia should be a neutral place for the compilation of human knowledge and I don’t like to see it used in the fashion that Oxfam has done.


 * There is nothing new about calls for a Robin Hood tax besides the marketing name and glossy campaigning. There have been proposals going back over 10 years for such taxes (such as by ATTAC, for example). Actually, even the name isn’t new as it dates back to a report prepared by War on Want in 2001. What might be new now is the level of press coverage. However, the sources of support that you cite are actually already covered in the Tobin tax article.


 * As for implementation, there has been a mixture of motivations. Some governments have implemented it for the purpose of generating revenue; others for the purpose of managing the volatility of their currency. What could be seen as different about a Robin Hood type tax is the explicit requirement that revenues obtained be used to fund various social justice projects (as opposed to being used as a form of general revenue). To my knowledge, no government has explicitly implemented a transaction tax for this purpose. However, as I mentioned above, calls for this aren’t new. Moreover, there is nothing stopping any government with such a tax already in place from using the revenue for funding social causes (or from implementing any sort of tax, financial transaction or otherwise, explicitly for the purpose of funding social causes).


 * I thus believe the best approach here, particularly when it comes to maintaining Wikipedia integrity, is to fold the material from this article into the financial transaction tax article. However, having said all this, if everyone is hell-bent on keeping this article, then I can offer a compromise proposal:


 * "If a Robin Hood tax (i.e. a FTT explicitly meant to fund social programs) is to be considered as a proper subset of financial transaction taxes, then this article must be rewritten at a greater level of generality and cannot focus on the efforts of any one particular campaign or group. That means getting rid of any remaining promotional material. It also means including material on previous such campaigns (by ATTAC and others), replacing references to “the campaign” with “a campaign”, etc. This will put the article on the same status level as other special kinds of financial transaction taxes such as the Tobin tax (anti-speculation/volatility reduction tax) and Spahn tax (protection against currency attack)."


 * This is not my preferred approach as I don’t like being forced to clean up Oxfam’s mess and it sets a bad example for Wikipedia. In particular, there is nothing to stop any other group from creating an article for whatever political reason, knowing that as long as they can keep the article alive long enough, the Wikipedia community will step in as unpaid labor for them and clean up their articles. However, if everyone else is determined to keep the article, I think this is a compromise that addresses the concerns expressed by the others.


 * @Aspro: A simple apology would have sufficed. Rewording "mindless" as "a little thoughtfulness" is just rhetorically shifting outright insults into sarcasm. I don't want to drag this out any longer with you so I am dropping the matter. I will conclude simply by pointing out that it doesn't hurt to apologize when you have caused someone else offense and even to err on the side of caution if in doubt, particularly in a medium such as this where all the usual cues of social interaction, such as tone and body language, are missing.


 * At any rate, I don't know why most other editors don't seem to be bothered by issues of Wikipedia integrity. Whatever the reason, I have suggested a compromise above in the response to FeydHuxtable which should meet the objections raised. Cosmic Cube (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The solution you propose is one that can be introduced by simple editing. As to the idea of other groups being able to start a campaign om wikipedia, this would only bear fruit if that topic had a notability. The Robin Hood Tax has clearly generated enough coverage on its ow merit to warrant an article. Its notable, it should stay, regardless of other concerns that can be fixed by anyone very easily. Repetition of your side of the debate ad infinitum doesn't make it more correct. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * @Dylanfromthenorth: I felt it was polite to write individual comments to anyone who responded directly to me. I apologize if it came across as needless repetition. Cosmic Cube (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The lengthy discussion aside, it's not G11 and it's also not A10.  It meets WP:N, and while the article could use a bit of further polishing, it's not so irredeemably bad that only deletion will solve the issue.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:16, 1 July 2010 (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.