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. The policy-based arguments for deletion, combined with the source analysis in line with the requirements for GNG which was never refuted, means the consensus exists in this discussion to delete.
Daniel (
talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-notable "alternative analysis" writer. All of the sources mention the subject in passing at best, except for an interview with a far-right magazine. Only claim to fame was editing a book by
Anatoliy Golitsyn. Google search brought up nothing further, considering this guy is alleged to have been an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
Jdcooper (
talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets
WP:GNG. Has multiple references and sources that show this.
CAVETOWNFAN (
talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
CAVETOWNFAN: Which ones? The only ones that are not trivial mentions are from unreliable sources. Which fails
WP:GNG.
Jdcooper (
talk) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Specifically, of 12 sources listed in this article, only 5, 9, 10, and 12 even mention the subject. 5 is a trivial mention, 12 is self-published, and 9 and 10 are from an unreliable source.
Jdcooper (
talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, As I agree with editor above who wants this article kept.
Davidgoodheart (
talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: There is nothing to see in the references except for two long newspaper interviews. Another conspiracy theory about Edward Heath? The subject pedals consipiracy, and the article does not meet GNG. --
Whiteguru (
talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (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.
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. The policy-based arguments for deletion, combined with the source analysis in line with the requirements for GNG which was never refuted, means the consensus exists in this discussion to delete.
Daniel (
talk) 05:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Non-notable "alternative analysis" writer. All of the sources mention the subject in passing at best, except for an interview with a far-right magazine. Only claim to fame was editing a book by
Anatoliy Golitsyn. Google search brought up nothing further, considering this guy is alleged to have been an economic adviser to Margaret Thatcher.
Jdcooper (
talk) 00:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets
WP:GNG. Has multiple references and sources that show this.
CAVETOWNFAN (
talk) 14:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
CAVETOWNFAN: Which ones? The only ones that are not trivial mentions are from unreliable sources. Which fails
WP:GNG.
Jdcooper (
talk) 23:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Specifically, of 12 sources listed in this article, only 5, 9, 10, and 12 even mention the subject. 5 is a trivial mention, 12 is self-published, and 9 and 10 are from an unreliable source.
Jdcooper (
talk) 23:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep, As I agree with editor above who wants this article kept.
Davidgoodheart (
talk) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete: There is nothing to see in the references except for two long newspaper interviews. Another conspiracy theory about Edward Heath? The subject pedals consipiracy, and the article does not meet GNG. --
Whiteguru (
talk) 10:45, 31 January 2021 (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.