Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty Subsidy

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. Black Kite (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Subsidy

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

Sources for this term virtually all post-date the article according to Google. This is suggested to be a term used in economic but there aren't academic sources for it. It appears to be original research and a neologism that the article is inadvertently promoting. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete - I don’t know the topic well enough to suggest a target (or targets)... but the article contains a lot of well sourced material that deserves to be presented somewhere (else) in Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to~~ dirty subsidy, from which a large chunk was copied without attribution in this edit. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Fossil Fuels section is also plagiarized wholesale from this paper from the Center for Economic Studies. Leaving it up for now per WP:SNOWBALL. The Mighty Glen (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles per Calton and Doug Weller below, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty subsidy. You're both right. The Mighty Glen (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge then delete as above .PRehse (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Dirty subsidy unless there's some evidence that this is a term as defined that is actually being used as such. Yes, they're well-sourced, but the sources are in support of an argued premise, not summaries of its use. --Calton | Talk 00:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dirty Subsidy seems to be a part of a Wiki-Ed project (Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Memorial University/Introduction to International Politics (Winter) -- but the original article (Dirty subsidy -- note capitalization) is specifically listed on project page, too. Which makes me think that we may have an unintended fork of the original article, not plagiarism. --Calton | Talk 01:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to dirty subsidy. Septrillion (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see how that solves the original research problem, so I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirty subsidy Creating neologisms isn't our role. Doug Weller talk 10:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
delete as fork of article which needs to be deleted anyway. Mangoe (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was hoping this was going to be the name of a soundcloud rapper, but alas it is not. All I can say is that Google Scholar has no direct hits for "dirty subsidy", so it seems like this concept probably does not normally go by this title. I would suggest "lil skeezy subzeeD" as a a better title if we wish to greatly increase confusion with soundcloud rappers. Otherwise, perhaps a review of Pigovian tax would help us head in the right direction.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neoligism/or. I'm !voting the same at the other article. Smmurphy^(Talk) 14:20, 23 April 2018 (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.