Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax choice


 * 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   no consensus. This is a horrid article, and the topic itself reads more of WP:HOWTO and full of WP:OR, and belongs more in a dictionary of economic concepts than of a notable encyclopedic topic. Realistically, this should be merged somewhere, but as a minimum there us currently no consensus to delete it at this time (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Tax choice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sources have been provided that the name is used, and very few of the sources can be verified to discuss the same topic. I would accept a merge somewhere, if relevance is established, once the quotes are removed or placed in footnotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - For outside editors...here's the context...competence vs good faith. Rubin, the very FIRST reference...Your Money, Your Choice...uses the term "tax choice".  But the term itself isn't important because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Whether the term is "tax choice" or  "individual earmarking" or "taxpayer sovereignty"...it's all the same concept.  A concept which is notable enough to warrant its own entry.  Again and again and again, your edits are extremely counterproductive, unhelpful and disruptive.  Please stop editing outside your area of expertise.  --Xerographica (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you provided some references, there is no evidence that the topic is notable. It's not mainstream economics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And the first reference is an essay, rather than even a column. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not "mainstream economics"...therefore...it should be deleted? --Xerographica (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - can I strongly (impartially) suggest everyone holds off on the personal attacks. Suggesting someone is not qualified/expert enough to edit a particular article/subject area is specifically listed at WP:OWN as unacceptable behaviour linked to WP:NPA. I note warnings and blocks have been handed out only recently for the same. On the article itself, I personally would like to see less WP:OR (SYNTH) type content and more references that cover this term in particular. Bringing together similar refs/ideas and building an essay that tenuously links them is not enough to meet WP:N. We really need to demonstrate that this is a commonly used term to describe a recognised idea. Stalwart 111  13:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So from your perspective...we should just ignore a lack of technical expertise? Do you know how I can readily identify a lack of technical expertise?  It's when people focus on "terms" rather than concepts.  As I mentioned, Wikipedia is not a dictionary...
 * Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meanings, usage and history.
 * In his article at the Atlantic, Daniel Indiviglio did not once use the term "tax choice"...but he discussed the exact same concept that this Wikipedia entry is dedicated to. Same goes for Brittany Binowski's article over at Forbes, Jack C. Haldeman II's science fiction in ANALOG, Russell Baker's article in the Gainesville Sun, Nobel Laureate James M. Buchanan's book with a chapter on the subject and so on and so on.  They are all talking about the SAME exact concept...but none of them used the term "tax choice".  So I have absolutely no problem agreeing that perhaps the term itself isn't notable...but the concept itself is notable enough to warrant it's own entry.  With that in mind, if you want to argue that the entry should be renamed to a more notable term...then I'd have no problem with that...because...again, the term itself isn't what's important here. --Xerographica (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've explained (on your talk page) the difference between policy and a user essay (an opinion), especially that essay which seems to have encouraged (in this instance) a breach of policy (WP:OWN and the related WP:NPA). You may still agree with that essay but that's not valid justification for launching personal attacks. Just avoid those sorts of comments and perhaps strike the one above - I'm sure we can all move on. All that aside, it doesn't really matter what the concept is called here, as long as it is reliably sourced. It's already quite WP:OR-ish and there are no inline citations so its not clear which refs relate to which parts. That's not a deal killer, but for an already abstract concept, it presents a problem. The problem is that for a subject you openly agree is called different things by different people, the concern is that there is some WP:SYNTH involved. Perhaps it would be worth trying to move those refs inline. That way other editors could make a proper judgement about whether the concept is sufficiently notable. Stalwart 111  21:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And as I just explained on my talk page...it would be a violation of the Good Faith policy for anyone to assume that I was being a dick for being a dick's sake. I genuinely believe that Rubin and Rich are harming Wikipedia.  If you truly want to make an informed decision on whether or not I'm delusional...then you're more than welcome to help edit the tax entry with Rubin and I.  As it stands, I've shared a plethora of RS...and Rubin didn't bother to read them or provide any of his own.  Yet, he will be the first to undo any edit that I make that is based on RS.


 * Regarding the tax choice entry...if editors want to make a truly proper judgement regarding the notability of the concept...then they'll do what I have done and make the effort to read through all the sources that I have provided. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort.  If there's content on that entry that you doubt...then please just post your concerns on the talk page and I will be happy to provide you with the RS's.  Then it would be up to you to decide whether it's worth your time/effort to create an inline citation for that source.  I definitely agree that the entry could use a lot of work...but deleting it certainly won't improve it.  --Xerographica (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have addressed the first bit on your talk page. I agree that deleting it won't fix it (obviously) and there's no requirement for you to do the fixing. But you seem keen on keeping it and part of WP:CONSENSUS is convincing other people your argument has merit - mine was just a suggestion on how that might be done. There's no doubt there are reliable sources, but I think the query is going to be whether or not they verify the content of the article in question without original research. Stalwart 111  22:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "My" argument is really simple. It's all the reliable sources that establish that this concept is indeed notable enough to warrant its own entry.  If there's OR...then throwing the baby out with the bath water doesn't seem like a very effective way of dealing with the problem.  --Xerographica (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  Merge Comment It seems that there is a real topic here, even if "tax choice" may not be a common or best search term. There are a number of reliable sources in the references, some secondary from reliable publications. Conceptually, tax choice is a type of Participatory democracy and in particular a kind of Participatory budgeting. "Participatory budgeting" garners about 260K hits on Google with the top hits appearing to be on topic. Given this, it may make sense merge an abbreviated form of this article with the Participatory budgeting article. The article it self needs cleanup. Lengthy quotes are appropriate for a monograph, but not a concise encyclopedia article; they should be removed and replaced with short summaries and associated citations. The article prose is strongly pro-choice and needs a more neutral presentation. Mark viking (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually a type of civic crowdfunding. Participatory budgeting has taxpayers pool their money...and then anybody can vote on how the pool should be split up.  Taxpayers would still have a vanishingly small say with how their taxes are spent...therefore we would still have the problem of rational ignorance...and public goods would still be inefficiently allocated.  Tax choice is the idea that people should have more of a say how their own taxes are spent in the public sector.  In other words...taxpayers would be able to "shop" for themselves in the public sector.  It's based on the demonstrated preference concept while participatory budgeting is based on the stated preference concept.  Any help with the style problems you noted would be appreciated. --Xerographica (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification of the distinction between Tax choice and Participatory budgeting; my merge suggestion is not the best choice here and I have stricken it.


 * Expanding upon Stalwart's explanations, the reason some of us Wikipedia editors are hung up on the article title is this: encyclopedias like Wikipedia are deliberately unoriginal. If there is a connection between, e.g., Haldeman's story and Buchanan's public finance article, there has to be some verifiable evidence out there that this is true. This evidence comes in at least two forms: there might be reliable secondary sources such as review articles or news articles that make the connection, or the sources themselves may explicitly refer to the same topic and associated jargon. If "tax choice" is not mentioned in these references as a (topic/movement/branch of political economy/etc) and there are no reliable sources connecting the references, then that connection cannot be made as far as Wikipedia editors are concerned, even if obvious to a domain expert. Making such connections without any sources backing them up is original research (see WP:OR) and such content is ripe for deletion. Mark viking (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * But the concept is exactly the same. With our current system...you and I would go to a restaurant...you'd give me your money...and I would order for you.  With a tax choice system...you'd go to the restaurant and order for yourself (See the entry that I created for Scroogenomics).  Haldeman's story is talking about people ordering for themselves...and that's exactly what Buchanan talks about.  The only difference is...Haldeman tells a story that anybody can understand while Buchanan tells a story that only economists can understand.  But it's the same exact story.  Well...no two stories are exactly the same but both address the same exact concept.  Should you order for yourself...or should other people order for you?  Tax choice explores the idea of ordering for yourself.  But this "problem" of not understanding the connection between sources isn't solved by deleting this entry...it's solved by much discussion on the entry's talk page.  The reason the entry is such a mess is because, honestly, I'm a terrible story teller.  The worst.  That's why I prefer quotes...that's why I LOVE quotes.  But Wikipedia works because we can improve the story together...and it doesn't work when a notable concept is deleted because one editor has not shown any interest in actually working together to improve an entry (what concerns has Rubin posted on the talk page?).  --Xerographica (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Reluctant delete - at this point, the article as written (aside from formatting problems and a pseudo-pop style) suffers from a combination of crippling failures: the lack of evidence that anybody but the author recognizes all of these as a single unified concept, making this term a non-notable neologism; and a heaping pile of original research and synthesis. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  14:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)




 * Keep - plenty of sources provided, just not formatted and styled as an encyclopedia article. Style and format shouldn't govern whether to keep the article.  Even a stub with See Also section is preferred to deletion. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An expandable stub is better than deletion. A list of (possibly) irrelevant quotes with (mostly) irrelevant "See also" entries, and (probably mostly) irrelevant "further reading" (not references), is not.  OrangeMike gave the best argument for deletion; it would require a reliable source to connect all the quotes and "references" to the concept, and none is forthcoming, because of the excessive number of quotes and "references".  A stub, with a few relevant quotes and references, connected by a single reliable source, might be appropriate.  I would still question notability, but then, at least, there would be something there which was not a violation of Wikipedia principles.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- Well sorted and documented, although needs more common main links to demonstrate as an idealized theory concepts and business terms, however more input concepts on the article is needed, such as diagrams to show a useful choices a consumer makes to decided in their life and statistics, while it may be useful to merge with other section topics for business transactions budgeting, recycle management, or reform articles .-- GoShow  (............................)   19:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment- Found a few more reliable sources on the subject...
 * Listokin, Yair - ‘I Like to Pay Taxes’: Lessons of Philanthropy for Tax and Spending Policy 2012
 * Baker, Russell - Taxpayers' Choice The New York Times. 1990
 * LeBoutillier, John - Check Out This Check-Off Newsmax. 27 Mar 2001
 * Anderson, Lincoln - Velazquez: Funding war should be taxpayers’ choice The Villager. 2007
 * Yglesias, Matthew - Giving Taxpayers Choice Could Boost Satisfaction With Big Government And Boost Social Spending Think Progress. 19 April 2011
 * Jimerson, Jeff - Initiative helps boost taxpayers' 'choice' Walloa County Chieftain. 20 June 2012.
 * Severe, Kenneth - Give taxpayers choice of whether to raise salaries The News Tribune.  11 Jan 2009
 * Taxpayers’ Choice Debt Reduction Act
 * Opt Out of Iraq War Act of 2007
 * --Xerographica (talk) 06:03, 23 January 2013 (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.