51:. The fact that this was clearly well sourced and covered (per the keep voters) but is potentially a neologism with little long-term impact (per the delete voters) are neatly compromised by following Squidfryerchef's suggestion to merge it. The target article does not currently contain any real mention of this event that received substantial coverage at the time. ~
138:
Please forgive this nomination if submitted in error. I am not certain if this article is needed. It is a stub and refers to a part of a legislative bill. As far as editorial interest, it has not seen a single edit (not even a minor edit) in more than a year. Even after creation, some editors
180:
It is referenced and seems notable enough for a stub. I don't imagine it will grow any larger (it's been around for three years), but there is no advantage to deleting it now. My only concern with it is that it is an orphan. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid
253:. It has been around since 2006 because it was a neologism associated with a news story in 2006. Yes these words get a mass internet blast when the media decides they like them for the story, but since then, nothing. And
161:
It seems notable enough for a stub based on the article's contents and sources available on Google News. It was proposed and received quite a bit of coverage. I don't think the encyclopedia is made better by deleting it.
142:
If deleted, then a possible reason would be insufficient notability as opposed to the full text of the law. If this tax is notable, then perhaps it should be a subsection to the entire bill that was submitted.
225:
131:
199:
139:
were questioning whether it merited an article. I was going to contact the 2 main editors for this article but both have not edited since 2008.
184:
17:
274:
as a nn neologism. Perhaps the bill would be notable, but the article appears to be about the neologism, not the bill. --
326:
98:
93:
347:
36:
102:
167:
85:
346:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
297:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
236:
210:
250:
163:
254:
333:
301:
293:
280:
266:
240:
214:
189:
171:
152:
148:
67:
262:
232:
206:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
322:
276:
289:
144:
47:
258:
89:
119:
317:
52:
311:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
81:
73:
292:, on the proposed Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005.
340:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
226:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
126:
115:
111:
107:
316:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
288:, and condense to a paragraph within the article
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
350:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
220:
194:
224:: This debate has been included in the
200:list of Law-related deletion discussions
198:: This debate has been included in the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
367:
302:16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
281:05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
267:21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
241:23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
215:23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
190:22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
172:22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
153:20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
343:Please do not modify it.
334:21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
68:22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
249:Article name is a
44:The result was
336:
331:
329:So let it be done
324:
243:
229:
217:
203:
188:
358:
345:
327:
323:
315:
313:
230:
204:
182:
129:
123:
105:
65:
34:
366:
365:
361:
360:
359:
357:
356:
355:
354:
348:deletion review
341:
330:
309:
164:ChildofMidnight
125:
96:
80:
77:
53:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
364:
362:
353:
352:
337:
328:
314:
306:
305:
304:
294:Squidfryerchef
290:Chuck Grassley
283:
269:
244:
218:
192:
174:
136:
135:
76:
71:
48:Chuck Grassley
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
363:
351:
349:
344:
338:
335:
332:
325:
321:
320:
312:
308:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
282:
279:
278:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
227:
223:
219:
216:
212:
208:
201:
197:
193:
191:
186:
179:
175:
173:
169:
165:
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
150:
146:
140:
133:
128:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
64:
60:
56:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
342:
339:
318:
310:
285:
275:
271:
251:WP:Neologism
246:
233:TexasAndroid
221:
207:TexasAndroid
195:
177:
158:
141:
137:
62:
58:
54:
45:
43:
31:
28:
277:Philosopher
272:Weak Delete
255:WP:NOTNEWS
145:User F203
46:merge to
259:Polargeo
132:View log
82:Pimp Tax
74:Pimp Tax
99:protect
94:history
319:Xymmax
247:Delete
127:delete
103:delete
286:Merge
185:coṁrá
130:) – (
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
298:talk
263:talk
237:talk
222:Note
211:talk
196:Note
178:Keep
168:talk
159:Keep
149:talk
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
231:--
205:--
300:)
265:)
257:.
239:)
228:.
213:)
202:.
170:)
151:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
296:(
261:(
235:(
209:(
187:)
183:(
176:'
166:(
147:(
134:)
124:(
122:)
84:(
63:a
61:c
59:z
57:a
55:m
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.