Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax slavery

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 Delete Per W.marsh this appears to be a real concept but this article appears to be original research and the article name is too pov. I'd be more swayed by Dhartung if I understood all the latin words he is using but the conclusion is clear. No prejudice to creation of a npov article discussing the subject of the sources that W.marsh is referring to. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax slavery

Tax slavery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This looks like Original research to me, the article has been deleted twice in the past but has not been to AfD. I looked for references and found somethings that did not seem to be in the same point of view as this article. I am not sure if it is possible to write a WP:NPOV that is encyclopedic that would meet policy on this topic. I am suggesting delete, possibly with a Transwiki to Wikitionary as a combination of WP:NOT#DICT, original thought WP:NOR and no history with a WP:NPOV to revert to. The footnotes in the article seem to indicate there is some reliable source supporting the article as it is, but a search ("Tax slavery" Noonan) did not lead me to anything I would call a reliable source for the article. Jeepday (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete. This would need a retitle and rewrite from sources to stay; as it is it's a WP:COATRACK/WP:NEO. The general concept relates to In re Noonan (Robert Noonan aka Willie Nile) who had a dispute with Arista Records ca. 1981. There is some case law that references 17 BR 793 and some entertainment law writing that discusses it more than triviallyGoogle, so it's arguably notable enough, but the phrase "tax slavery" is sui generis. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think this might actually be a real concept: [1], [2] and [3]. There appears to be both a modern and historic use for this term. --W.marsh 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment To the extent that may be true, it has nothing to do with bankruptcy law -- it's about the taxpayer being a "slave" to the taxing entity (see Tax Freedom Day, which various U.S. political entities have announced for at least 50 years), but this article is about debtors and creditors. It's not clear at all why the term is connected to the material discussed. --Dhartung | Talk 08:14, 26 January 2008 (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.