Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Soros conspiracy theories

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. v/r - T P 14:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Soros conspiracy theories[edit]

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

This is a content fork of the George Soros article - essentially "all the nutty unsubstantiated stuff people have said about him." Most of it is clearly against WP:BLP policy - "So and so accuses Soros of ..." without any substantiation, i.e. it is just repeating smears and gossip. The part on the Prime Minister of Malaysia is already included in the main article, the rest is just plain accusations without support. Smallbones (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep this article seems to me to fall under WP:WELLKNOWN in that the "nutty unsubstantiated stuff" is sourced and presented as opinion rather than as fact. the few items which are not sourced can easily be deleted, although I didn't notice any really egregious unsourced statements presented as fact. there seem to be enough nutty things said about george soros to justify a separate article. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WELLKNOWN deals with a "multitude of reliable published sources" not a multitude of unsubstantiated opinions. The sources cited are essentially primary sources in this context - the opinion itself. Smallbones (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, well done. Far better to farm out the fruitloops factory from the main biography page... Carrite (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no, I don't think that is a valid argument. I'm tending towards 'delete', but there might be a case for arguing that the exisence of the Wolraich article [1] suggests that 'Soros conspiracy theories' is a topic in itself that has received attention from secondary sources. I'd suggest that those who wish to keep the article try to find some more sources of this type - not articles about (supposed) conspiracies involving Soros, but articles about the 'Soros conspiracy theory' phenomenon as a topic. We don't need articles (or sources) by fruitloops, but articles about fruitloops... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page absolutely must be viewed in the context of the article George Soros. Either one clogs the main article with a big, messy "criticism" section, which gives undue weight to the crackpots of the world and turns the page into a battleground, or one farms out that material to a sub-page such as this one. That's a perfectly rational reason for a "keep" for a well-sourced article like this one. Carrite (talk) 15:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, no. I voted keep because the dangerously bad content was removed. But content forking is a bad idea. It doesn't protect against the underlying problem of there being too much attack material about a subject, it just isolates it. That only serves to make things worse. The editors who like contributing the nuttiness have a less-watched place to do it. Not a good idea. i kan reed (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well sourced, well maintained, I don't see the problem. --Tarage (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or remove all unsourced "conservatives say". Long winded vote, but some of these things are ENTIRELY innapropriate per WP:BLP. There should be absolutely zero weasel words in an article that serves only to list disparagements against its subject, refutations notwithstanding. Some of this could be downright actionable slander as currently written. Being "well-known" is no protection against the BLP concerns mentioned in the nom. That's not to say there isn't compliant material, and a fixed article is better than a deleted article. i kan reed (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Assuming the offending material I removed stays removed. As it stands now, the unsourced attack statements are mostly gone. i kan reed (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment excellent work!Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article says, in the title, that it is about "conspiracy theories" and the content is sourced. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 23:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP KEEP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article or book by a journalist does not establish WP:NOTABILITY. My suggestion is to explain Wolraich's views in an article either about him or his book. TFD (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - I do support forking out BLP violating weight of notable content when it gets overly large but this content wouldn't stand any chance of addition to the BLP and it is nothing but speculative titillation here, its not encyclopedic content and shouldn't be hosted here. Conspiracy theories about (add your favorite person here) no no no. Off2riorob (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep - contains all the usual nutbar crap that we find in articles on birtherism and other conspiracy theories, and the theories are extensive enough nowadays to justify an article, rather than just a footnote. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC) (fully disclosing that he's contributed to one or two of the groups that anti-Soros folks point to with alarm)[reply]
Keep per Orangemike (see a disclosure on my user page re: Sierra Club, etc.), WP:ODD, and WP:FRINGE. However, I'd prefer it to be edited down, e.g the analysis section is pure synthesis, or needs to be in the lead. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP - anything notable can be given due weight on the main article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete These type of articles always, without exception, become coatracks and fester largely unnoticed in the dark corners of Wikipedia. There are so many bad articles left to clean up or purge, we shouldn't add any more. More to the point here, repeating unfounded (and often slanderous) rumors is a violation of WP:BLP, regardless of whether it's attributed to "critics claim", "some have argued" or any of the other tortured WP:WTA phrases used. If the material isn't appropriate for the biography, why would it be appropriate in a poorly-written content fork? --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources to establish notability. Notable delusions merit their own Wikipedia articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:33, 7 August 2011 (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.