Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxation in Finland


 * 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   speedy keep per WP:BEFORE, WP:SNOW, WP:POINT, and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Taxation in Finland

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

It is not needed. Already covered in Economy of Finland. If it is expanded enough and enough sources are added to prove that it merits its own article, I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 23:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please immediately remove the deletion request. If you want to discuss the question whether "Taxation in XX" is a good template for an article title, take this discussion to a more general level. --vuo (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the title. I'm talking about whether there enough info on this article to merit its own page. I think it should be part of Economy of Finland. JDDJS (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Primary concern is that the article lacks content. Well, we can always add more! There's plenty of content out there to expand the article with. There are plenty of "Taxation by country" articles to use as a guide.--hkr Laozi speak  01:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there proof that it will get big enough? Add some references and start expanding it and I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 02:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish I could, there's thousands of books on the topic, but the majority of it is very jargon heavy. I think it would be better to contact someone more familiar with economics.--hkr Laozi speak  03:22, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Clearly an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Carrite (talk) 02:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Another nomination in the series of totally unexplained attacks on notability of completely relevant articles. My guess is some users feel a need to seek developing articles and nominate them for deletion just in order to boost their perceived wiki-fame on the expense of destroying other editors' good-meaning contributions. This is a a pathetic and sad trend in Wikipedia, and again, to me personally at least, this nomination tells much more about the user who made and his/her motivation than the article itself. (Finnish taxation system is a very complicated subject and even has professorships in Finnsih unversities, including a M.Fin level main discipline in the University of Tampere. Hunders of published academic and government works, plenty to write e.g. comparison to other countries, unique features, taxation tables, specific examples, controversy & criticism, effect of the EU, influence by Hannu, history & development etc. etc. ad nauseum) --hydrox (talk) 03:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC) Edit: Relevant policy would be WP:PRESERVE. Nominating articles that obviously pass WP:N for deletion just to state a point like "this article is too short" is an example of abusing the community process. --hydrox (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an unfair judgement you made of me. My main point for nominating the article is the fact that is already included on it. It should be userfied until it has more content then it. JDDJS (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have to admit it was unfounded. But I've seen people who seem to do here nothing but to nominate articles for deletion and have been personally hurt by their ignorance – calling out names would be wrong, but let's just say I now largely hold deletionists in same regard as vandals, a counter-constructive force that aims to damage Wikipedia. Your ignorance of Wiki policies does not change the fact that this nomination is pointless. Wikipedia is eternally a work in progress, and asking for an article to be deleted (or moved to userspace) where its subject matter trivially passes WP:N is an attempt to censor Wikipedia, though your motivation largely escapes me. As long as article subject matter is notable it should be allowed to develop - there is no deadline. In a nutshell: deletionist attitude is not in line with the spirit that Wikipedia has been following for the most part of its fruitful growth. --hydrox (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The content is already covered in Economy of Finland. For there to be a split there should be proof showing that it is merits its own article. Right now the section at economy of Finland actually has better coverage of the topic. If someone adds several references, then I'll be convinced it can expand and I'll withdraw my nomination. JDDJS (talk) 21:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. While the topic of "Taxation in ..." any independent country is inherently notable, this article is completely unsourced so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic, per all. JJB 15:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How about userfy This article is pointless right now due to no references at all and little content thats not already covered in economy in finland. After the sources and more content is added, then just recreate the page? I don't feel content that is already covered on other pages should be created until they contain a lot more content then the other pages. JDDJS (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, that's not what the "wiki" in Wikipedia means. If the topic of an article is inherently so limited that it's impossible to write a long article about it, then it's justified to have it as a section in another article only. If the article could be expanded, it is kept as is, until it becomes longer (see for example Märket). In this case, it's obvious that taxation in Finland is such a convoluted topic that you could create tens or hundreds of articles about it. In general, it's bad form to start AFD proceedings by default if one does not understand the topic or Wikipedia policy, particularly WP:NOTPAPER. --vuo (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well at least add some references that show it can be longer and I'll end this AFD. JDDJS (talk) 00:23, 26 October 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.