Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Bilderberg Meeting

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. By direct order of the Supreme Grand Illuminatus himself, I am disregarding the unfortunately too insightful opinion of Tris2000. Sandstein 05:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Bilderberg Meeting

This is a pov content fork of Bilderberg Group which covers the subject in general and specifically of this meeting. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Bilderberg Meeting. A suggestion for a merge has been rejected on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is enough well-sourced material for it to stand on its own. If all meetings are brought together with the main bilderberg article, that would be too big. It also give space for expanding the especific meeting details, as a lot of information usually comes out after the meeting. Regarding the security for example, it gives further details, as the use of F-16 jets, which seems to be the first time in a bilderberg meeting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Echofloripa (talk • contribs) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Guardian had excellent (and somewhat scary) coverage for this event, although it's only referred to in the article, rather than detailed. Still, all this and more could easily go into the parent article. Hairhorn (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of this material is non-notable. Some of these participants are already mentioned in the main article. Alternatively, names of participants could be included in the List of Bilderberg participants article. The only non-trivial claim made is that 'the resort was protected by hundreds of police, coast guard, speedboats and two F-16 fighter planes,' but as this is attributed to an unnamed source it is next to worthless. The fact that a couple of journalists were detained during a security operation is sadly also non-notable. One could be detained for less on a Sunday afternoon in London nowadays. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 10:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - I would say to keep the page and expand. Answering the justifications above:
- "That the guardian article had a great coverage but was only referenced": an initial summary was done based on the article, but with a lot of space for expantion. The removal of the page won't help for the completeness of the subject.
- "That participants had been already mentioned in the main article and to use the list of participants": in the main article of the main subjets you will find a summary about the last of even all of its sub-parts. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain's_Got_Talent#Series_three and Britain's_Got_Talent_(series_3). About moving the names to the list of participants, that list doens't give an idea of the cronology, so you can't see easily who went in the last meeting, and finally we need to have cohesion here, why not keeping all the known and relably sourced information about this especific event all in the same page, the 2009 Bilderberg_Meeting page.

I accept that listing the 2009 participants together better indicates the chronology. This does not merit a separate article. If such detail is notable, perhaps participants could be listed together at the List of Bilderberg meetings article? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "Regarding the security, the only non-trivial is said to be worthless because the jornalist didn't named his source." it'ś on the right of the jornalist to not reveal directly his source, that doesn't take the credibility of the information. And after all, the excessive security was confirmed accross the whole series of the Guardianś article and others.
- "That the majority of the article is not notable and the fact of the few jornalists that covered the event have been detained and followed is not notable.". What is more notable then, Susan Boyle ending up in the hospital? Or all the results of all Britain's Got Talent have its place on wikipedia? Is this more important than a secret and highly secure catching up of the 130 more important, influent and rich people in the world under a black-out of the mainstream media?
The arguments for removal of articles are getting more and more biased, not only of this article in particular. If the article is missing some information we can work on that, but it will help no one to have the whole page removed, except for keeping people away from the truth. Echofloripa (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Susan Boyle, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. - Crosbiesmith (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, see in there: "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.""Echofloripa (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pov fork, conspiracy fancruft; not a likely search term; individual meetings should be presented in context within Bilderberg Group. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily keep - this article HAS to stay. The amount of monarchs and leaders who attended the meeting, enshrouded in secrecy, makes it notable in itself. I would also be EXTREMELY WARY of anyone recommending we remove this article. The Illuminati shun publicity so to remove the article from Wikipedia is therefore bowing down to their pressure. This article needs to stay here and, preferably, expanded. Tris2000 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2009 (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.