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 Redirect to Gold bug. There is a clear consensus that the article should not exist as a standalone, the majority is in favor of a redirect, and the policies are also explicit that redirect is preferable to deletion if possible.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable obscure fringe conspiracy theory of one or more gold bugs, unsourced by anything resembling a reliable source, and basically unnoticed even as a fringe theory by the rest of the planet. Orange Mike | Talk 00:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gold bug. Generally concur with the nom's statement although I think the term "gold war" is used by some fringe conspiracy theorists. For that reason alone, I suggest a redirect vice outright deletion. I further note a possible COI as the article's author claims to hold the copyright to the image recently uploaded. See also this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gold bug. A Google search didn't produce mainstream commentary. Geogene (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False - Google lists a Bloomberg article on Dmitri Speck's book, for example. Also, is it actually wp policy to only validate mainstream sources and US sources? If a preponderance of alternative sources cite the theory, then it comprises a valid entry into WP based on public interest. Please google Gold Price Manipulation. Several mainstream sources have now been added. I have permission to post the graphic of Gold Wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterkel (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:FRINGE. The fact that a fringe theory exists or even that it has been mentioned in mainstream sources is not a guarantee of notability or a stand alone article. Also you may not present fringe theories as fact, which you have been doing citing other fringe sources. See WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that Wikipedia has codified a mainstream bias, and any number of policy pages can be linked to to demonstrate it. On the Bloomberg piece, one source isn't usually enough to establish notability, and that one looks a lot like an op/ed anyway. Further, this article looks to me like it's really about the book "Gold Wars", which wasn't written by Speck. Geogene (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - Is there an article about theories that the US gov't controls other various commodity prices such as other metals, oil, food stuffs, etc? Deunanknute (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I am aware of. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It does seem like the term is most heavily used by fringe theorists, but I have found some evidence that this term has been used in the past, namely through this Senate hearing. The only problem is that we only see snapshots so we can't really verify how in-depth it went into the topic. I wouldn't use that to show notability but mostly I just wanted to show that it's been in use for a while. On the same topic I did find this book which appears to discuss the topic but never refers to it by that name. I'll see what else I can find, but so far I'm leaning towards redirecting as well. The only usable thing I've found so far is a recent book published through an academic publisher. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I can't find anything most of what I'm finding is pretty general and already covered at the article for gold fixing. Even then most of the time the term is used its used in reference to gold rushes, so the best alternative here is to just redirect to gold bug. I'd say that maybe there could be a hatnote directing people towards gold fixing, but I don't think that there is enough here to really mention this in terms of the United States specifically. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect the article seems to be a Trojan horse for the book, which simply isn't notable, as far as I can tell - maybe I'm not finding the reviews. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless an article is created on the actual conspiracy theory (which is almost certainly notable), in which case redirect to that. Right now, the article is a description of three non-notable books, not a description of the conspiracy theory itself. Redirecting to gold bug makes little sense as the term is not a synonym for "gold bug", nor is the term "Gold Wars" mentioned on that page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction, The Gold Cartel does appear to be notable (its been reviewed by multiple mainstream publications). That portion of the article could be repurposed as a stub on the book. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The conspiracy theories about gold manipulation are addressed in Gold bug. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ad Orientem; there is no need for a fork to cover this obscure term for an already-discussed topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider two sentences that say conspiracies exist "discussed", then yes they are discussed. However, that is not what an actual article would look like - there is plenty of mainstream discussion of the idea (mostly very dismissive, of course). The gold bug page isn't really an article at all. It is some weird pseudo-disambiguation page.

Again, there is no reason to redirect - the phrase "gold war" apparently has many unrelated uses and isn't mentioned at the proposed target. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gold bug - purely fringe sources for this, nothing that I could find in more mainstream sources. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This article seems to be a thinly veiled promotional page for a non-notable book. Alternatively redirect to Gold Bug. Simonm223 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or delete. It was a poorly-sourced conspiracy-theory-cum-book-advert a year ago; I redirected it; the article creator diligently restored it; and here we are. bobrayner *Delete 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wow. What bobrayner said works for me. HullIntegrity^\ talk / 23:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not worth a redirect because the term is purely promotional. jps (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2015 (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.