Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ZimZalaBim (talk | contribs) at 03:10, 14 May 2006 (→[[Problem-Reaction-Solution]]: sig). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Problem-Reaction-Solution

  • 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.60.75 (talk)
  • 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]
  • keep I see no real reason to delete this, even though it does seem to need some major work and more/better content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow demon (talk • contribs)
  • keep I agree that this should stay, as long as it is presented as a theory I see no problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.179 (talk)


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 the closing admin catching the new users, thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No risk for that happening, im sure you check out their history. But there is a chance they become actual editors if they take the time and get a account. For the record, i have no idea where they came from, i did not advertise this. --Striver 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Newbies likely followed a link from a comment on slashdot. --David Battle 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You got a link to it? --Striver 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid=15326966

Cool. Still think the article is non-notable? --Striver 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Even if the phenomenon is real or even widely imagined enough to be notable, this specific term (problem-reaction-solution) is as far as I can see only used by a single uninteresting conspiracy theorist and his epigones. Bucketsofg✐ 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article seems sound, and is properly classified as Category:Conspiracy theories. ~Kylu (u|t) 02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The most that might be wrong in this article is perhaps an implied bias against the Bush administration. But nowhere is the Bush administration, or even the US government directly mentioned in the article. Informative, regardless of whether or not the title is a neologism.
  • keep Interesting & plenty of references ... maybe could use a clean-up, but I don't see why it should be deleted (P.S. I was linked here from /., and I don't have an account, but I don't think that should negate my opinion entirely ... I have made at least 50 constructive edits under this IP ... one of these days I'll get around to making an account.) 24.7.106.155 02:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Midnightcomm 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep? Good topic, bad article. Suggest the NPOV flag. Ztras 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Good topic. The whole point of Wikipedia is for good topics to have improving content over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.15.247 (talk)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problem-Reaction-Solution_(second_nomination)&oldid=53095552"