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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black tax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Polemic disguised as an article. No reference for the article title. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Phrase does not seem to be notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blogspot is that way -> - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - neologism, masquerading as WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless secondary sources found: Neologism. I can find plenty of PRIMARY sources that prove the existance of the neologism, but no SECONDARY source coverage to allow for inclusion under WP:Avoid neologisms. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not (yet) notable neologism  Chzz  ►  02:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Race and inequality in the United States, which treads much of the same ground without the neologism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2009 (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.