Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Soros conspiracy theories (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

George Soros conspiracy theories
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG, possible WP:BLP violation. This page, albeit dedicated to conspiracy theories about Soros, doesn't actually have any bona fide conspiracies. This seems more like an attack against Soros who does not really feature in the sources. Rather, the sources all point to Glenn Beck's claims. If Beck believes these things, then it can be included on his BLP. As it stands now, it seems like a WP:BLP violation to give a platform for unsourced theories about a living person by another. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Page consisting of WP:BLP violations that have no place anywhere on wikipedia. Sro23 (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep While the page lacks anything about purported funding of protests against Donald Trump, there are a large percentage of Americans who believe that he funded protests the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated. Specifically, a poll conducted by Public Policy Polling showed 18% of American voters and 38% of people who voted for Donald Trump believe that. This should satisfy the requirement for notability. Based on that, the article should not be deleted and instead expanded and or reworked. poll cited Addisnog (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If that is true, and there is RS to support that, then that's not a conspiracy. Soros doesn't hide his donations to groups or his intentions politically. But this page is nothing more than Glenn Beck's opinions. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Public opinion polls about something is not how we determine notability or neutrality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - yeah pretty much a BLP violation and what's not POV, UNDUE or FRINGE can be included in the regular article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into the George Soros article. That is the appropriate place for content detailing opinions about Soros and his activities. To have this in a separate article seems very forky, and it has been given a pov title. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Shorten and merge per WP:POVFORK — JFG talk 18:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge somehow into the main article. doesn't seem important enough to stand out on its own. The Verified Cactus 100% 01:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:SW3 5DL. The personal views of Beck about Soros has no place on this article. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball 08:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or very selective Merge without redirect per nom. If these are notable conspiracy theories about him, they can go in his article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:25, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a collection of unnotable opinions from poor sources are not conspiracies. ValarianB (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into Soros main article. This one's too short, Malaysia is already discussed in main article (not in as much detail), and Glenn Beck's conspiracy theory can either go in his main article or briefly mentioned in the Soros main article. Criticism of Soros shouldn't just be deleted, especially since this article is not really slander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.118.125 (talk) 00:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)  — 69.143.118.125 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. This article is frankly ridiculous, and it's not just an egregious WP:BLP violation, it dances on the grave of WP:BLP. To have an article in which you say about a living person "[some moron] accused him of collaborating with the Nazis as a child" (neat trick!) or "[some literally paranoid-insane person] accused him of running an international drug ring"... man, we don't do that. The article is just a coatrack to hang crazy, stupid lies on a living person. It's not a vote: the person closing the article has to delete per WP:BLP. Period. Herostratus (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear BLP violation. None of it merits merging but salting should be considered. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:26, 26 February 2017 (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.