Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global elite (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 keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global elite

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article paragraphs are copy/paste with very few changes. Sources are unreliable and heavily bias. Article reads more like an attack on companies than anything about them. RichardMills65 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that nominator's objection is to a bunch of copy-pasted soapboxing that was added to the article today. I deleted it all, leaving just the neutral sourced material that was kept at the last AfD discussion. With the deleted section gone, the article remains as a weak keep IMO. I will add it to my watchlist to guard against that kind of nonsense, for which the article is probably a magnet. --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe someone should check out Google News and find as much information about the global elite as possible. I don't mean to attack companies, but it gets personal when the "elite 1%" helps to finance these "wars for oil" and refrain from hiring the 99% that need their weekly paychecks to pay for groceries, bills, and transportation-related expenses. GVnayR (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reads more like a political pamphlet, rather than a WP article. But that is not a reason to delete, of course. If anything is worth keeping in this article then merge it into a section in Conspiracy theory and redirect this page to it. MakeSense64 (talk) 16:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the article? Only one or two sentences even refer to the the possibility of a "conspiracy theory". The article is referenced virtually sentence-by-sentence to Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be revised and perhaps merged with another article on social class or globalization. Meclee (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a commonly-used phrase, almost trite and cliched; however, that makes it notable. The article is, right now, well-sourced per WP:GNG and WP:RS. This has been used as a conspiracy theory, not the Conspiracy theory. Our core readers, students, will look for a separate article, and we should provide it for them. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dicdef, nothing particularly interesting here that's not covered elsewhere. Hairhorn (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.