Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-Reaction-Solution (second nomination)

Problem-Reaction-Solution

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete nn neologism of Alex Jones and owned by one user. Here is the previous afd. Jersey Devil 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Not a neologism if it was used already in 1999. Specialy not of Alex if it was used by David Icke. Thanks for the insult of claiming i "own" the article. I have a hard time to see how this is not a bad faith nomination.--Striver 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think this is valid entry and see no reason to delete. Edogy 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep Actually, I just came across a reference to this article on Slashdot regarding domestic spying. The article could be better, but the topic is a keeper. --Jmccorm 00:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep? The example leaves a lot to be desired. Outside of the example, the article itself would be ok. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.71.51 (talk)
keep? A too-brief, but cogent and neutral explanation of what politicians do, and will no doubt continue to try to do no matter which party is in power. 01:37 14 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.93.249 (talk)
Delete Article is of low quality and heavily paranoid. Examples are biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.192.227 (talk)
keep Very brief and lacking on content. A bit paranoid but it is a valid view and theory. I believe that the article should stay until a better one can replace it.
keep Needs work, but I had been searching for a name for this *concept* for months, and now I have a name for it. Previously I was using "False Flag Attack" but that is not quite the same idea. --David Battle 01:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, couldnt you at least get a account? It sure helps, and it only takes a second... --Striver 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put up the {{Afdanons}} template on top of this article. Lots of "new users" voting keep. Also, Striver, please stop trying to give advice to bypass us catching the new users, thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]