Deletion of Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination)

Comment: Since atleast in the previous discussion on the article's talk page some editors proposed merging the two articles, which way they should be merged if they should be? The article 'Cultural Marxism' has existed since 1 June 2006, whereas ''Frankfurt School conspiracy theory'' was created by {{Userv|Fuzzy mongoose}} in May 2013 as a split from ''Cultural Marxism''. At that time, no one suggested deleting ''Cultural Marxism''. It is important to consider because merging all contents to either article could partly be a 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: fails ; this is a neologism which has all relevant content related to it covered more than adequately elsewhere
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: or'', as a second choice, '''Redirect'''. Fails : ''Neologisms … for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia.'' It has been shown that sources purporting to reference this topic either do not, in fact, do so or are not . As stated earlier, "We just can't have article on Wikipedia about things for which we have no specific sourcing
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:RS)

Comment: per , "''fails to advance an argument for deletion...making nominations of the same article with the same arguments...''"  Also the nominator's complaints about |SPAs seem |saucy when he himself has only made 216 edits and most of his activity in the last 6 months was in this dispute
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Speedy keep (WP:SK||WP:SPA||WP:SAUCE)

Comment: or '''Merge''' The academic use refers to Antonio Gramsci|Gramsci and Frankfurt School|The Frankfurt School. The unevidenced conspiratorial claims about modern cultural phenomena (Multiculturalism/Athesism/Political Correctness) suffer from extreme ,  and  issues - which are unsurmountable due to the nature of the claims as invalid. As stated above, the Rothschild family approach is most appropriate for such a niche (non-notable) conspiracy theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NPOV)

Comment: My understanding of the facts so far is that the academic consensus (as has been panned out on the talk page by those actually looking into the references) - is that the limited amount of academics who do use the term "Cultural Marxism" use it to refer specifically to the Gramsci/Frankfurt origins of Critical Theory and Cultural Studies, and in no way make the claim that Critical theory or Cultural Studies is innately Marxist, nor that there's a concerted effort in the western media to push Marxism, or to fragment "western Christian" society so that Marxism can be pushed. So the issue with the article's existence (and whether this means deleting it, or merging it) is that the small sliver of truth to which the article refers should obviously be (and is) covered in other places on Wikipedia (leaving only the addition of the newly popularized term to be added/merged to take some place in those pages). Beyond that is conspiracy theories about people and schools of thought that already have adequate and well referenced pages. So unless someone can point at an academic consensus that supports there being a media conspiracy (ie. Cultural Marxism being an extended school of thought with Cultural Marxists having taken over much of modern media for their own agenda) - then merging this "article" or rather the addition of the conspiracy terminology to other pages; seems to be the logical path forwards based on the facts and academic consensus (as opposed to the claims and pejorative gossip). As I've said through out this "debate", this is no different from the Rothschild family conspiracy theory (complete with similar levels of anti-semitism) - until the claims can be proven, the theory shouldn't be substantiated by having it's own (trouble proned) wikipedia article.    
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK||WP:V||WP:OR||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: For all of the reasons I've previously stated, namely that no reliable sources posit the existence of a school of thought called "cultural Marxism", and that the conspiracy theory already has an article. The term itself fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: and perform the inevitable fate this article will face'' once the |canvassing and off-site collaboration from s has settled down. Many commenters here and editors of the article are misunderstanding the process of fitting into  and more specifically /. As for the article itself, many sources listed here fall under the eyes of  beneath . Merely because a term exists a few times in articles from B-tier sources does not imply any means of verifying some kind of notability. Merely because it is in the title (but not contents of) of essays or academic papers (see  and  for |fringe material) does not imply notability and have no place here, similar to the old climate change wars and other controversial topics. Hell, ''a graph from Google Trends Australia'' has been in the article near the top since 8 Decemberhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cultural_Marxism&diff=637141488&oldid=637139933 as an incredibly desperate attempt to provide . Worse, it was added under a stealth edit summary to hide its inclusion. It's so well-guarded and generally low-priority in trying to clear up that the essay-style wording of its entire paragraph has been left there to rot
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Canvassing (WP:CANVASS||WP:SPA||WP:GNG||WP:NOPAGE||WP:ONUS||WP:V||WP:SPS||WP:REDFLAG||WP:FRINGE||WP:N)

Comment: and modify content (both articles are horrible). It appears "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" has 0 Google Scholar hits and 1 Google Books hit (the only hit, ''Catastrophism: The Apocalyptic Politics of Collapse and Rebirth'', is being used as a source despite the fact it's a book by a radio journalist).  The term "Cultural Marxism" on the other hand has plenty of usage in Google Scholar (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Cultural+Marxism%22 1760 hits, regardless whether it's with a lower-case "C" or not - and indeed not all usage refers to what we're discussing about at all - but that just means a redirect is inappropriate). So why would "Frankfurt School conspiracy theory" somehow be a better title when it has very little actual usage outside of a 2003 SPLC intelligence report? Sourcing is difficult on both articles, and both articles currently are inappropriate per . If a merge is done, Frankfurt School conspiracy theory should be merged back into Cultural Marxism because the latter has far more usage. People have rightly criticized Cultural Marxism article's poor condition, but at the same time they have ignored the fact that the other article is just as poor. Or should both be deleted, then
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)