Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep state in the United States

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 as unchanged consensus aside from nominator, nac, SwisterTwister talk 06:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deep_state_in_the_United_States[edit]

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

Article is Point of View DrElgin (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC) Article is Point of View. Article is not Encyclopedic. Deep state is not an American phase in common usage, it is a "slang phrase" only used by a small group of far right.— DrElgin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Within the article, there are plenty of citations to reliable sources that mention the topic of a deep state in the context of US politics. Major news outlets have discussed this in terms of allegations and/or conspiracy theories from the alt-right. Issues such as a non-neutral point of view can best be handled through judicious editing rather than through deletion. A merge into State within a state (where deep state redirects) is also a plausible option. Deli nk (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment as a Trump specific conspiracy theory is there some Trump related article we could merge or redirect to? Artw (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bad idea to think of it solely as "a Trump specific conspiracy theory" because the concept is older and broader than that. A few minutes on Google turns up examples where the concept has been written about by academics on the progressive side (see Peter Dale Scott) and by the ex-Republican Mike Lofgren. Deli nk (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple RSs discussing the topic. Matt's talk 23:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Deep State" is a "slang phrase" not in normal American English usage. (could move to a Dictionary of Slang phrases) Article is Point of View and Not Encyclopedic. At best, this seems an advertisement for the Republican party. The same government leaks mentioned have existed during all administrations, not just Trumps. DrElgin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:01, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Slang phrase" is not a disqualifying attribute for a Wikipedia article (example: Hella). As for an ad for the Republican party, every politician is welcome to push their narrative into popular culture. Wikipedia articles are only measured against their success in getting that term used by WP:Reliable sources. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for the closing admin: this comment is a second "vote" by the nominator. Deli nk (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this as similar to Vast right-wing conspiracy. While I personally see "Deep State" as more of a skewed assault on proper democratic institutions whereas the Clintons were sort of refering to an actual conspiracy; I set my politics aside and argue this is a term being used by non-altright media sources: Politico using "Deep State". I'd rather Wikipedia, with our best efforts to provide well sourced info, be the first hit people see when they search this term. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. And expand. While both parties disagree on the effect and goals of the Deep State, most people acknowledge the existence of long-time government officials and Obama holdovers who want to make the current president's life miserable and as difficult as possible. The highly notable phenomenon needs to be documented. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Trump's claims aren't true, but that doesn't mean it's unencyclopedic - we have lots of articles about things that aren't true, such as Flat Earth. As noted above, there's a number of reliable sources discussing and sometimes debunking the various claims and counter-claims. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I was young, the "Deep State" was a conspiracy theory told by progressives/liberals in which Big Oil and Wall Street controlled the reigns of the state regardless of who is in the White House. Now its a conspiracy theory told by conservatives in which progressives/liberals control the reigns of the state regardless of who is in the White House. This idea has been around for a long time in US politics and even if the details have changed, the fundamental concept is essentially the same. It is notable - academics study it and write about it and professors teach about it in Poli Sci classes. The idea that deep state is a slang phrase "only used by a small group of far right" is plain wrong and the person who nominated this article for deletion on that basis is just ignorant. Slideshow Bob (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. EELagoon (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2017 (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.