Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wise Men


 * 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. Every suggestion in this discussion would have us doing something with the article other then deleting it. What, if anything, should be done can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Wise Men

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Though a brief check would satisfy most that it does indeed meet those guidelines, this term is used vaguely in other Wikipedia articles to refer to different things, including potentially different 20th century groups (see Elihu Root). The subject's vagueness and one non-fictional account that uses the term, plus an article writen by an author of the book, do not seem to merit inclusion under our guidelines. dci &#124;  TALK   22:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

COMMENT: I hardly think the term is likely to be used "vaguely" in other articles - it's most familiar meaning is as a reference to the Magi, often known as the Three Wise Men (although as we do not really know how many there were, perhaps we better just say "Magi"!) Perhaps, to avoid confusion, renaming rather than deletion is needed here. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC) Another: [jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/92/1/261.2.full] "... such as Charles E. Bohlen were able to prevail upon the “wise men”—W. Averell Harriman, Dean Acheson, Robert Lovett, and John McCloy—to name a few."
 * I meant "vaguely" when used to refer to the article's subject, not to the Three Wise Men/Kings/Magi.  dci  &#124;  TALK   21:03, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Not going to vote on keeping or deleting the current article, but ACEOREVIVED is right that this title is a likely search target.  Either keep the article or convert it into a redirect to Biblical Magi.  Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's definitely potential for confusion here. If it's kept, I'd recommend renaming this article The Wise Men (Cold War era) or something, and redirecting The Wise Men to Wise men, a disambiguation page. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't delete, There may be other "Wise men" but these folks who, in post-WWII diplomacy, are known generally as "The Wise Men." Whether that book was the origin of the term or not, (NOTE: apparently the term originated with McGeorge Bundy) there are many references in the literature to this group by that title.  Heres a site:   "McCloy... was a member of the foreign policy establishment group of elders called "The Wise Men.""

Neither of these directly reference the Isaacson and Thomas book. There are more like this - Google "The Wise Men" along with "McCloy" or another member of this group. Breffni Whelan
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns about deletion; the term does indeed appear to be used to refer to such a group of 20th century policymakers. However, I'm not sure that the article as it stands doesn't need some restructuring, so that it is more broad and less detailed about this group in particular.  Perhaps I could withdraw this and the discussion could be moved to the talk.   dci  &#124;  TALK   21:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The book about the Wise Men was just cited by Fareed Zakaria on Global Public Square on CNN as one of the most important he had ever read. Why delete this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddy48tc (talk • contribs) 18:29, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't delete, claims that this term is vaguely used in wikipedia (thus far unsubstantiated) are not grounds for attack on basis of notability. This group was known contemporaneously and in numerous publications as "The Wise Men."  Given the extent of their influence they were definitely a notable group. and as the nominator themselves admits even the most cursory search for sources would show their notability as numerous books have been written on this group and their influence.  So the grounds for deletion of this article are unclear at best. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that almost all uses of this phrase (in the sense conveyed by this article, as opposed to the Magi) lead directly back to the book, The Wise Men: Six Friends and the World They Made, by Isaacson and Evans. Their book appear to be notable and I think this article should be completely rewritten to be about the book - rather than about the individual "wise men" who are the subject of the book. The title could be changed to The Wise Men (book) for clarity. So my !vote is Keep but refocus. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. If this suggestion becomes the consensus result, I am willing to undertake the necessary rewrite of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with MelanieN. To clarify my original position, I believed that the article's subject was the term "The Wise Men", as it pertains to this "type" of policymaker.  This would not be notable; the group the book describes could arguably be considered not notable as an entity.  The book itself, yes, is indeed notable, and refocusing the article would be a very good idea.   dci  &#124;  TALK   23:59, 7 June 2012 (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.