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 keep. Geschichte (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tax and spend[edit]

Tax and spend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Violates WP:WINAD. Basically contains the description of the term and the etymology. Mazuretsky (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is perhaps more of a WP:STUB than a dictionary issue. There are >1.8 million results for the term "Tax and spend" on Google, including multiple published books, academic articles, political commentary pieces, and references to the terms usage in major political campaigns, both in the US and the UK. The etymology being the only information in the article itself, when there is so much apparent broad usage in modern discourse lends to the case that the article should in fact be expanded, not deleted.

--Pshmell (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of search results is hardly the argument. I doubt that there is much to write there beyond what is already written in the article Modern liberalism in the United States, as there is little meaning to this word beyond the identification of this particular political philosophy. Mazuretsky (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term has 588 references in the New York Times in the period from 1970 to 2002 (see here), or over 1.5 uses per month. The term is significant enough to impact major political discourse and reporting, and the encyclopedia should reflect that. This article's problem is not that it is acting as a dictionary definition—the issue is that the article is a WP:STUB that should be expanded to explain the term's significance to government deficit spending policies and the discourse around them. Pshmell (talk) 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the article, adding significant information, including two new sections. The new section Tax and spend#Political discourse includes both favorable and unfavorable uses of the term. The other new section includes references to the use of tax and spend policies in the United States. I cleaned up the History section, added several references, and added a second paragraph to the introduction referencing the 1936 Supreme Court case on the matter of tax and spend policy. I maintain that this is not a definition issue, and that issues with the page can be corrected by expanding it. Pshmell (talk) 01:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's a thing in United States politics. Bearian (talk) 22:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just clicking the 'find sources' links at the top of this AfD brings up a great deal of coverage of this subject - books and academic papers in particular cover it in great depth. Notable and encyclopaedic as a term and a concept. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article could be expanded and improved, but the concept is clearly notable, just based on existing sources in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a phrase that is frequently used in United States politics and is referenced appropriately. JayJay^{What did I do?} 05:23, 8 December 2020 (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.