Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davos Man (2nd nomination)


 * 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   merge to World Economic Forum. Courcelles 01:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Davos Man
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This seems to only be a neologism, although sometimes used. Another concern is that the article takes a very negative view of these "Davos Men" and although no individuals are named in this article many are in the related, and linked, article World Economic Forum. Borock (talk) 16:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I tried to contact interested editors but none of the major contributors to the article still seem to be active and it is not part of any project. Borock (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. World Economic Forum would seem to me to be a plausible redirect target given the nature of the subject.  I see a fair amount of casual use, but no real systemic definition, which would seem to indicate that this is at least partially original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to World Economic Forum. May be noteworthy in the context of the WEF article (the Guardian source shows that it has had at least some discussion. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea, if it's made clear that the phrase is mainly an insult given by critics. Borock (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.