Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harberger 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harberger Tax

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV, first reference is from a primary source which is not independent of the subject's creators. Second source seems to just be an announcement of the creators' book about the tax, not very reliable. MaterialWorks _(talk) 19:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MaterialWorks _(talk) 19:37, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(not that I have very inclusionist preferences)

I think this article is important, and I have improving it on my TODO list. I would be sad to see it deleted, and just reuse this as a template when reviving it in the future. Niplav (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ugh *note Niplav (talk) 12:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, $Salvio giuliano$ 20:15, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as from first glance it seems plausible that such a tax proposal exist and has been analyzed, and another user has it on their todo list to improve it

LegalSmeagolian (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first three results that I get by clicking on the word "books" in the nomination are [1], [2] and [3], all significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There are plenty more books and academic papers with coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention [4] Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources presented by Phil Bridger and the Journal of Legal Analysis article linked on article talk (same as the link I just gave above) establish GNG clearly. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.