Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davos Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Article needs some work though. W.marsh 21:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Davos Man

Davos Man (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Incomplete AfD. Template was added very shortly after the article's creation which hasn't been edited since. This is a procedural listing. I abstain. Seed 2.0 17:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment TIME and the BBC have written about it, but only 9390 Google hits, so I don't think it's exactly caught on. -- Mithent 00:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sr13 08:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Based on the quality of the Google hits for "Davos man", I believe Wikipedia should have an article with that title. The current version needs to be improved substantially. YechielMan 08:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This seems to be some kind of neologism. The article itself is part essay written in an unencyclopedic tone and part dicdef. Also, the constant references to the "elite" are nauseating, but that's not a reason for deletion in itself. Deranged bulbasaur 09:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, I suppose. It's a bit obscure but obviously has some currency among those who pay attention to the, um, Davos men. Mangoe 11:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment According to the BBC, we can learn all-important things such as "how to be hip" at the snooty little event in Davos. The term seems to be a way for the attendees of the World Economic Forum to ingratiate themselves with each other through some contrived designation. The fact that it's mentioned in some media stories means it's verifiable and that reliable sources exist, but it doesn't make it notable. Let's not lap at the dregs of the BBC and TIME on this one. Deranged bulbasaur 11:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep: This isn't any neologism. I've seen it used in The Economist, and far from recently, and am a bit curious as to the relevance of class war angst in AfD discussions. That being said, the article as it stands sucks, and should only be given so much rope to see if it can be improved beyond dicdef status.  RGTraynor  13:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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.