Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language 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 delete‎. There seems to be a consensus to Delete this article. Any editor can create a Redirect from this page title to an appropriate target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Language 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)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Dict def. I could support a redir to economics of language. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Politics. UtherSRG (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think this falls under a DICDEF (and I say this as someone who's pretty inclined to label things as DICDEFs when I think they are). There's an underlying concept here, which is being identified, but it's a stub, so it's certainly not going to be a lot more than that. As for if it should be kept, deleted, or merged...I'm less sure about that, but just being "tagged for notability since 2010" isn't really a sufficient argument. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article appears to be primarily about Van Parijs' idea for a tax to be paid by countries using widespread languages such as English, to countries using less common languages. The pdf-file by Van Parijs listed in the link is a draft, not a final peer reviewed article. I Googled to see if the article has been referenced, and it seems to have been published in "The challenge of multilingualism in law and politics" in 2005, but I am unsure if that is an obscure journal or a book, and if it is peer-reviewed. In any case, there is no evidence that Van Parijs proposal has gained any traction among policy makers, or been the subject of any substantial analysis by other authors, so lack of notability is a major issue. The second and third references are in the final paragraph that describes the "analogous concept" that non-English speaking countries are at a disadvantage, but connecting this to Van Parijs' idea for a monetary tax is original research by synthesis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:47, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep; possibly merge or redirect to Economics of language. Work on the economic and social justice effects of languages certainly exists – in addition to Van Parijs see for example economist Francois Grin and perhaps linguists such as Ingrid Piller or Claire Kramsch. The notion of a "language tax" as such doesn't seem terribly influential, but I think there is room to keep some version of this. Cnilep (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's a neat concept/word but it doesn't seem to have been widely adopted. If there was an article about it in a RS, it would be clear keep but without it, hard. No results when looking on Google Scholar, Google News, it's not even widely talked about as "language tax" by the person who supposedly coined it. Not much valuable content would be lost.AncientWalrus (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There appears to be some usage of the term in Gscholar, but seems to be about simplification of tax laws; I'm not sure what this is exactly. Oaktree b (talk) 02:19, 6 October 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.