Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing conspiracy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Left-wing conspiracy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

According to the first edit summary, this article was created as WP:POINTy response to vast right-wing conspiracy (which is a specific phrase unlike this). Pretty clear the article fails to deliver because there are no sources for this broad use of "left-wing conspiracy" and the only sourced chapters is OR websites and blogs. Pudeo' 09:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/TNT - fails WP:FRINGE; appears to be set up to defame Democracy Alliance, only sources are blogs. "Vast right-wing conspiracy" seems to have specific notability as a unique phrase thanks to the "vast."  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - article was clearly created to make a point, cited sources don't really demonstrate the need for an article on this (ie, the notability or widespread use of the phrase). Fyddlestix (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wanted to add that I see potential for an article to exist with a WP:WORLDVIEW perspective so I also added WP:TNT. The claims of "Left-wing conspiracy" UK Israel and "right-wing conspiracy" UK French (conspiration d’extrême droite) are used around the world. An encyclopedic article about both terms has potential. Someone who is not me would have to see if there's enough coverage of it directly to meet GNG. Also, the phrase "Vast left-wing conspiracy" is used frequently now, usually in opinion pieces. I can see that article existing if there was a way for it to be neutral coverage of the term, and not just baseless accusations by bloggers about the Clintons and MSNBC and the Stonecutters or whoever. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence it meets notability. TFD (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete.  Poorly-sourced POV nonsense.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as the article vast right-wing conspiracy has merit, perhaps this has merit as well. While I agree with the nominators reasoning of WP:POINTy, deletion is not a substitution for clean up. The question before us lies in whether or not the subject of the article is notable. Now one can argue that it is notable, but badly, written and say WP:TNT; IMHO that is not the case here as the article is of stub-quality and can be easily remedied, and written neutrally if it is notable.
 * The concept is written about in several context in several books:
 * The concept is written about by the Washington Free Beacon: . :As for a world view, the subject has been written about in France in the context of anti-masonry:
 * To be honest I have no interest in working on the article. However, based on how we're suppose to judge AfDs, it appears that based on reliable sources I must place my opinion as Weak Keep .--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject of this AfD has been the primary subject of a book by Byron York: . Also Sidney Blumenthal touched upon both the "vast right-wing conspiracy" and its opposite concept:, quoting Time. Given the plethora of sources I have provided, upon further thought I am changing my opinion to Strong Keep.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that connect the late 19th French Masons who defended Dreyfus with modern U.S. Democrats. And are you saying that people who today talk about the left-wing conspiracy are the same as the right-wing anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists who framed Dreyfus?  TFD (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The term which is the subject of this AfD has been used with different context in different periods of history. Just as the term "Right-wing conspiracy" has been used with different context in different periods of history. Whether we disagree with the subject, or not, does not impact whether the term is notable or not. Is TFD of the opinion that the topic is not notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a term, it is an adjective modifying a noun. Google "miller conspiracy" and you will find there are conspiracy theories about the unrelated deaths of the unrelated Edith Starr Miller and Glenn Miller.  That does not mean we should  create an article called "Miller conspiracy."  TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is besides the point, this AfD is not whether or not "miller conspiracy" is notable or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The term which is the subject of this AfD has been used with different context in different periods of history. Just as the term "Right-wing conspiracy" has been used with different context in different periods of history. Whether we disagree with the subject, or not, does not impact whether the term is notable or not. Is TFD of the opinion that the topic is not notable?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not a term, it is an adjective modifying a noun. Google "miller conspiracy" and you will find there are conspiracy theories about the unrelated deaths of the unrelated Edith Starr Miller and Glenn Miller.  That does not mean we should  create an article called "Miller conspiracy."  TFD (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is besides the point, this AfD is not whether or not "miller conspiracy" is notable or not.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - At best WP:TNT. Some POV, some OR, and a quote from an unreliable blog. Nothing worth saving here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion is not a substitution for improvement.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2015 (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.