Deletion of George Soros conspiracy theories

Comment: These type of articles ''always, without exception,'' become |coatracks and fester largely unnoticed in the dark corners of Wikipedia. There are so many bad articles left to clean up or purge, we shouldn't add any more.  More to the point here, repeating unfounded (and often slanderous) rumors is a violation of , regardless of whether it's attributed to "critics claim", "some have argued" or any of the other tortured  phrases used.  If the material isn't appropriate for the biography, why would it be appropriate in a poorly-written content fork
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK||WP:BLP||WP:WTA)

Comment: An article or book by a journalist does not establish .  My suggestion is to explain Wolraich's views in an article either about him or http://books.google.com/books?id=lttzgekm4FMC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA147#v=onepage&q&f=false his book
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: this article seems to me to fall under  in that the "nutty unsubstantiated stuff" is sourced and presented as opinion rather than as fact.  the few items which are not sourced can easily be deleted, although I didn't notice any really egregious unsourced statements presented as fact. there seem to be enough nutty things said about george soros to justify a separate article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:WELLKNOWN)