Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of projects supported by George Soros

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of projects supported by George Soros[edit]

Article is basically a list of people/organizations a billionaire has given money to. From what I can tell, lists like these are not usually included, otherwise nearly every philanthropist would have a list as such. Also, the references are based mainly on one website. If any particular organizations are important I see no reason why they can't be included into the main article. Mønobi 01:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in George Soros, with more in-depth prose. —Animum (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is too large and stylistically awkward to merge to the main George Soros article, but is valid and valuable information that should be kept. I would like to see its scope clarified. ("Supported" how? Financially? Or is he just in favor of them?) Torc2 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it necessary to keep a list of organizations that Soros gave money to? If some organization stands out, merge it by adding a paragraph about it. Mønobi 03:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Necessary" isn't a requirement for inclusion. Plenty of articles aren't "necessary", only notable enough for inclusion. Yes, I believe this list is notable enough for inclusion. Torc2 (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's sort of paranoid, but there are people who make a Very Big Deal out of the fact that George Soros is any part of the support of an organization. Other than his doppelganger Richard Mellon Scaife, I can't think of a philanthropist who has received equivalent scrutiny. We can definitely improve the scope and be more precise than it is, though. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge back into main George Soros article. Beeblbrox (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable given the uniqueness of the subject; Soros underwrote a $20 million campaign to unseat a sitting US President and, having not done so, funded various surrogates and studies to undermine his policy, sometimes (or often?) on scientifically shaky grounds. I can't think of a philanthropist who is so often, or so willingly, at the eye of the left-right political storm. --Kallahan (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keeper, this one jamesgibbon 12:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back: Why does this exist? It exists as a fork, and forking is a violation of the deletion guideline. Why would people want it: to target the man. Therefore, this combines two bad things. If the editors of the Soros article don't want it, then it can't be broken out. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "List of" articles are generally not considered forks. See WP:SPINOUT. Torc2 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can appreciate the impulse to delete, but this is a well-cited list, and as pointed out by Torc2, it doesn't have to be vitally important to fall within Wikipedia's purview. Soros as a career philanthropist, this seems analogous to The Beatles discography or List of people pardoned by George W. Bush -- a list detailing the career accomplishments of a group or individual. Dylan (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though some internal organization would be helpful--the lists seem organized neither by date, alphabet, or function; it would also help if there was some indication of how complete the list is.DGG (talk) 04:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do we have consensus that this should be kept? --Kallahan (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD debates usually remain open for at least 5 days, although I don't see a lot of support for deletion here. Beeblbrox (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2008 (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.