Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guilderberg

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. Author himself has said delete JForget 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guilderberg

All online sources appear to be blogs or self-publishing press release sites. Non-notable organisation which fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and maybe WP:HOAX. JD554 (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Nominating for speedy delete as blatant advertising following this edit by article creator[1]. --JD554 (talk) 14:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I believe this is a hoax, and possibly a parody of the real-life organization Bilderberg. Google returns almost nothing besides multiple copies of this press release; zero GNews hits. This edited YouTube clip of Eyes Wide Shut is further evidence that this is a hoax. If this was really a 570 year-old organization, you'd think more interest and press would be generated. Some of the article text is copied verbatim from the organization's website, which I believe is in violation of copyright. Noir (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not to delete This is not a hoax but a real organization which as it says clearly in its press release is just now choosing to recruit and advertise in the mainstream. It has been operating in various locations around Europe for the past 570 years. A much debated and similar fraternally inclined organization Freemasonry has very visibly recently started to advertise, recruit and make public its operations and intentions (see Freemasonry Freemasons begin university recruitment drive along with an informational recruitment video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ekf4UM1ls I see no reason why Guilderberg is any different and cannot do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherLars (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC) The Scottish Rite of Freemasonry has even advertised on Nascar vehicles as mentioned in this Slate article: Talladega Rites. The Masons' bizarre NASCAR campaign[reply]

The question is not whether "Guilderberg" can or cannot make public its purported existence. Rather it is a question of whether this organization merits an article on Wikipedia. As I mentioned before, I can find very little convincing evidence that this group even exists (outside of its own literature regurgitated in press releases). Comparing Guilderberg to Freemasonry is more than a little absurd. Hundreds of books have been published on Freemasonry - the article itself is supported by more than 100 different external sources. It is a verifiable, established organization with a mountain of supporting evidence. On the other hand, almost nothing can be ascertained about Guilderberg. At least one blogger actually claims that this is nothing more than a front for a marketing campaign. Even if this is a real secret organization, it fails several of Wikipedia's established standards for notability, presents unverifiable information, and clearly lacks reliable sources. Without strong supporting evidence, this article is a clear candidate for deletion. Noir (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--as a hoax? nonsense? non-notability? unverifiability? promotion? Take your pick. Drmies (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonverifiable. Laudak (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ If Noir calls "Tweets" or Twitter conversations - "bloggers" and bases the veracity of Guilderberg based on them, then a cursory search on Twitter will reveal dozens of legitimate people talking about it. Some have uploaded mobile pictures of billboards seen in various cities. Freemasonry was once unknown and very underground before they became public. The same goes for Bilderberg who many still do not believe exists. The importance of *Keeping this entry is paramount to transparency, open information and knowledge of the people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherLars (talk • contribs) 18:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the mistake in terminology - as I do not use Twitter, I wasn't sure what to call users of the service (I suppose "tweeters" is the correct term). At any rate, almost every mention of Guilderberg on the site is from the same two users (50walts and sharon_bates). Other mentions are either unrelated or seem to be people who have gotten "Guilderberg" confused with "Bilderberg." The billboards you referenced (1 2 3) are clearly photoshopped. My main point from before still stands - the subject matter does not meet Wikipedia's standards. Noir (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V big time. Deor (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article's creator now appears to want the article to be deleted[2]. --JD554 (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please go ahead and delete. Based on repeated insistence and some valid points above. BrotherLars (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrotherLars (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 August 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.