Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sunshine 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. postdlf (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sunshine tax

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete . Article should be sandboxed until credible documentation can be found. The single citation is from an obscure publication and not really credible, nor correctly cited. The other is a pointer to a search, meaning that the "citation" is really an WP:OR "observation." Student7 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Speaking of which, this would be a very good one for them, I like it. Carrite (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Keep It's actually not a neologism - the term has been used to describe San Diego for many years and it's mentioned in many Reliable Sources.  As it stands the article is hopeless, focusing on one obscure area, but the term has much broader usage, and the article could be repaired and properly sourced. I'll see what I can do. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Please take another look. I just did a complete rewrite, with citations from an economics book and multiple Reliable Source newspapers. I think the term is now well established. --MelanieN (talk) 02:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is weird - for some reason, on the discussion page, the article is classified as an article about San Diego - even though the article (up to now) has primarily been about the Kelowna region of British Columbia! I don't know how to fix that, but if the article is kept, someone should change the discussion page to reflect that it is an article about economics. --MelanieN (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I got it. Carrite (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Although I won't argue that it isn't a real thing, it doesn't seem to be notable. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Previous vote stricken. MelanieN has it sourced out well enough for now, I reckon. Carrite (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Change in vote from original nominee to "Keep". New citing and rewording seems credible. Student7 (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Terminology that seems to have been used quite a lot.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 18:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per user comments noted above, and improvements to the article. Also see precedents at Articles for deletion/Sisu, Articles for deletion/Sisu (2nd nomination), Articles for deletion/Velleity and Articles for deletion/Chaos.  Reasonably notable concepts are kept, rather than deleted or sent to WikiSiberia. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2011 (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.