Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret government

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. FCYTravis 07:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Secret government
Reads like original research. Very POV. Perhaps, a copyvio too, but I can't source it. Mmmbeer 02:05, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep it! A bit ambigous, but is a big topic. It appears to be a collection of observations of the recent(last 75 years) of  American History. I like it, and vote to keep it. I can see this topic expanding fast. (Unsigned, by Lucky me. Note, user's first edit. --ArmadniGeneral 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete: I can't establish copyvio either. However, it's extremely POV, as you said. There are no sources (I doubt any credible ones exist), and almost definitely original research. --ArmadniGeneral 02:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the political equivalent of space intelligences. A conspiracy theory reported as fact, not encyclopedic. CanadianCaesar 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, and probable nonsense. Also, the author seems to subscribe to Avoid using wikilinks... how annoying. Flowerparty talk 02:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, POV, unencyclopedic, borderline nonsense. Binadot 02:32, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or merge with conspiracy theory. --Fangz 20:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. Merge is not necessary; conspiracy theory discusses what a conspiracy is, and gives examples.  It does not give individuals a megaphone and a soapbox for them to spout their usually inane, and always POV theories from.   ral  315  20:43, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to conspiracy theory. (if keep, cleanup and change the article's name to S... G... (consp. theo.) José San Martin 00:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Various "secret government" do appear to be part of the conspiracy theory field, alongside with Secret Masters and the like; equivalent to grey eminences or power behind the throne. I'd suggest a mention in conspiracy theory or similar pages - Skysmith 08:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable. Only sourced theories should be at conspiracy theory. Gazpacho 23:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (but extensively cleanup); otherwise, merge @ conspiracy theory. JDR
 * Comment: I did a rewrite; moved most of the info into the talk page for a cleaup. JDR 18:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable, original research. JamesBurns 03:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to be a genuine conspiracy theorist concept. Send to cleanup and/or peer review for NPOV rewrite. arj 00:01, 7 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.