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. -- Cirt (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Small article, which most likely is impossible to develop further (unless some bigger controversy erupts out of it or it will be passed as an actual law, not as a suggestion from Wilders among other suggestions). Not really needed as a separate article since it can be fit right in to Geert Wilders article (like I said, small content), which I can do by myself if this AFD will be passed. Userpd (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you copy anything from this article to another, the project's copyright licences will require that this article be kept. Uncle G (talk) 02:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it can be paraphrased then to avoid copyrighting issues. Userpd (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Multiple problems. Unsourced. No evidence of notability. Appears to contain original research. Suffers from biased point of view problems that may extend to the choice of name for the article. And it is, in essence, speculative. Uncle G is correct that you cannot merge and then delete (see WP:MAD for why - although you can Merge and Redirect), and in any case there is no reliable sourced information here capable of being merged. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The as yet unanswered question is what Userpd thinks should happen when a reader who has heard about a "hijab tax" comes along and tries to look up hijab tax in Wikipedia. Should the reader be invited to start an article? Or should the reader be directed to an article that covers this in the context of its proponent? The latter seems the obvious answer. No deletion is required to enact it, however. Indeed, the article could have been just merged and redirected as an ordinary editorial action without coming to AFD at all — and in fewer edits than an AFD nomination, to boot. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (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.