Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by A Man In Black (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 6 August 2006 (→[[Problem-reaction-solution]]: closed, deleted). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
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 DELETED. This title is a neologism being pushed by a source that doesn't come close to reliable, with extremely tenative links to writers who are already on the fringe (most of which seem to be of the form "David Icke once linked to the site that coined this term"). While the style was admirable (reporting on a fringe concept without accepting it), it is not and cannot ever be sourced to a reliable source due to the demonstrated lack of currency.

This AFD does not preclude a differently-titled article, sourced to reliable sources, about the sociopolitical concept of creating a problem in order to justify "solving" that problem (such as fabricating a war to declare martial law). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem-reaction-solution

This lies somewhere between being complete original research, suffering from an incurable lack of reliable sources, representing an extreme point of view, and being a supreme example of complete bollocks. It was nominated twice before, here and here. I would ask the closing admin to pay careful attention to merits of argument here, rather than number of people voting. Thanks.Byrgenwulf 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination is inherintly flawed, the very same point of view you cited expreses:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. --Striver 18:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please post new comments at the bottom of the AfD, Striver, instead of grandstanding like this. And note also that absolutely nowhere in the nomination did I mention anything about minority points of view. Byrgenwulf 19:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable conspiracy neologism, not found in any reliable sources. In the past AfDs, David Ickes' use was taken as evidence of notabilty/it not being a neologism- I mean c'mon. Be serious here, ok. JoshuaZ 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP is NOT Alex Jones's website. KWH 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia needs less of this nonsense Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 13:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above --Guinnog 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC) changed vote see below[reply]
  • Delete from me too. As per Byrgenwulf's rationale, this is both original research and bollocks. --ajn (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research that fails verifiability due to the exclusive reliance on personal websites and partisan sources. --Allen3 talk 14:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this term may be relatively new, this is not a new concept. The article is about a power play that has been attempted throughout history, with only a few notable successes. In grade 11 economics, my class discussed similar strategies for macroeconomics, but I havent been able to find a more common term for the concept; if there is an exiting politics article for the same, I wouldnt mind if this article should be merged into another. Personally I think that this page would be a good list of possibly unverifiable attempts of any government to attempt this type of thing. The article currently focuses on current, more questionable attempts, but that can be corrected by expanding the list into earlier centuries, and by including more failures to balance the POV. IMO this doesn't classify as original research in entirety: the term isnt coined by the contributor; for most of the examples, there is external opinion that this strategy was employed (of course it is un-cited in many cases but that doesnt mean it was original research); while it may be a neologisms, it is worth including in Wikipedia as a record of either peoples perceptions or reality -- a rename or merge would solve this aspect of the problem. Jayvdb 14:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Political blog until the time when there are good scholarly sources dealing with this subject. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Utter original research on the original research of an idiotsyncratic "writer." Absolute policy violation. Geogre 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,(see below), per Byrgenwulf. But given its history of AfDs and controversy surrounding whether or not it should be deleted, definately NOT a candidate for speedy deletion. And with regard to salting, we shouldn't do that to any article unless clear abuse is obvious IMO. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research based on a personal site. Aren't I Obscure? 15:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many comments above. violet/riga (t) 15:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I might be sceptical about the validity of conspiracy theory concepts (in fact I think they are complete bollocks too), they are a contemporary stream of human thought (albeit a minority viewpoint). I think if somebody can be bothered to add a entry on this then why should it be deleted? Flag it up as a conspiracy theory concept, if you must, but don't delete. Skandha ji 15:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think this article needs a cleanup, or else it should go into conspiracy theory. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 15:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An article about such a controversial subject area should report opinions but not adopt them. This article meets that test. Furthermore, it attributes the opinions to the people who hold them, and provides verifiable sources for the assertion that they hold those opinions. Keep the article, but make sure that links to this article don't start sprouting all over the place (e.g., in Reichstag Fire, Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and other alleged examples). Merger into Political blog would be inappropriate because that article can't accommodate this level of detail about all the different subjects that are discussed on political blogs. JamesMLane t c 16:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Claims of orignial research, non-verifiability and unrelibale sources are complete bollocks, everything is stated as the beliefs of individuals, everything is sourced to those individuals and nothing is OR. Claims that self published sources are non-reliable is dishonest twisting of wikipedia policies, a website is a perfectly ok source of information for the belifes of those who wrote it. This very cumbersome wording gets 38 800 Google hits WITH quotation marks and millions of people subscribe to the views of Alex Jones. This whole afd is nothing more than a atempt to suppres the minority view.--Striver 17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, one more thing: WP:NPOV:
. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
We can have Goatse.cx but not this? We can have The Headington Shark, but not this? --Striver 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please inform me on how to report on something that is not mainstream without using non-mainstream sources? That would be appreciated. --Striver 17:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NOR? How does it fail nor? what would be a reliable source for a non-mainstream consept? --Striver 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources for non-mainstream topics exist all the time. For example, one can easily find articles in the New York Times that discuss creationism. One can find a few articles that mention the 9/11 conspiracy theories and full articles discussing the claim that the previous US presidential election was rigged. David Ickes himself has been reported in multiple major newspapers. However, this term has not made it into the mainstream enough for such sources to exist. JoshuaZ 21:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that. The very topic of Ickes 1999 speech was PRS, he hammered it into the audience. The speech is well refered to, but not its content. But still argue that there are plenty of non-mainstream referenced material on wikipedia, my favorit being goatse. yuck... --Striver 21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you know how to give a "reliable " non-Mainstream source? What is your answer to WP:NPOV:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
I would appreciate a answer. --Striver 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Badgering each and every repsonse here will do you no favours. Regardless of the source the article is nonsense anyway - if it is of note you should be able to easy find multiple sources, multiple good sources. We're not here to mirror somebody elses views and website. And by the way can you explain to me (on the article talk page, not here) how come Madrid is listed with empty fields, London is all about "England" and both are listed under unnatural, Americanised, names? /wangi 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am expecting a real arguement, and are not content accepting empty unspecified references to some wikipolicy. "Regardless of the source the article is nonsense anyway"? Then why does it get 38000 google hits? Oh, you mean you dont like the consept? No problem, you dont need to, we have articles on both Atheism and Deism, and im sure you regard one of them as "nonsense". There are multiple good sources. This is a minority consept, you expect to have New Your Times as references for a minority consept? That is ridiculuous, then we could just as well delete most of the wikipedia non-mainstream articles. We do not need a single mainstream reference to represent the views of a minority, and that is a fact. As for your quotestions, they are editorial in nature, ask them on the talk page and we can work it out. --Striver 18:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is quite revealing how the deletion proponets have no arguement whatsoever, except for some non-specified reference to some arbitrary choosen policy. I guess it is better than writing "delete" and nothing else. Im still waiting to receive a well argued motivation. Just consider the template at the top... --Striver 18:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would appreciate any help on improving the article. --Striver 19:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm not a supporter of the theory, but the article is potentially useful and relevant. However, the content needs to be rewritten so that it cites more authoritative sources. Perhaps the actual content could be merged with another relevant article?Blowski 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OK I'm game. Change vote to keep and improve, per Reinoutr. It's rather in need of a cleanup and references, but I now accept the subject is not inherently unencyclopedic. --Guinnog 19:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most of these are using biased sources. If it has to be kept, only keep in those such as Sidious using Naboo to springboard into Chancellorship, anything that is undisputed, and not conspiracy theories. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, you are missing the point: The people that use the term use it in 80% of the times to give a context to the claim that 9/11 was "self-inflicted wound" by a powerfull criminals. Just try watching one of Alex Jones movies, he spends large portions of his films giving historical context. --Striver 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Striver what WP:RS sources do you have and what evidence do you have for notability? JoshuaZ 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Rense [1] also Jone's and Icke? --Striver 21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Rense might help you slightly for a notability claim but in no way does does Rense meet WP:RS. JoshuaZ 21:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS is irrelevant. It would be relevant if the article claimed the PRS to be factual in any special event, but it does not. It only claimes that some people belive in the strategi and attribute the consept to various events. And for that, you need nothing more than proving that the individuals hold that belief, and a blog is all that is needed for that. --Striver 21:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Are we reading the same document linked at WP:RS? Can you explain where in WP:RS it says this? (and bear in mind you still have notability to get through) JoshuaZ 22:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as there is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it, and where the material is relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation. Anyhow, neither TerrorStorm, nor 9-11: The Road to Tyranny are blogs, and Prisonplanet.com is a Alternative News site, directed be several persons. --Striver 22:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You failed to quote what follows directly after: not contentious; not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; about the subject only, and does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject. I seriously doubt that your sources would pass the first two conditions I just quoted. Lazybum 23:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If i was to use the source as a source for a third party, i would have writen "CIA killed JFK". But i cant. I cant use Alex as a source for it. But i can use Alex as a source for Alex, i can write "Alex views that CIA killed JFK". That is the very essence of NPOV. If it was not that way, it would be impossibel to follow this policy:
None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper.
The whole Reliable source issue is not applicable, of course is Alex a reliable source for Alex. I could live with Alex not being a reliable source for a "contentious" "third partie". That is ok. If i would to build a cite about myself, www.StriverOnWiki.com, it would be a great and reliable source for my views. The only issue would be if it is notable. I am not notable. Alex is. 25000 Google hits in february, grown to 38800 on July is notbale. --Striver 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex's notability is not relevant to whether this should stay. The notability of the phrase is. If you think it is notable because Alex is notable then it should be merged into his article. JoshuaZ 01:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have already explained that there are several people using this term, including but not limited to Rense, Icke, and 38800 google hits, that has grown from 25000 in less than six month. That is plenty of notability. Add to that it being used in most of Jones films, and there is no doubt about its notability. The term merits its own notability. More so than any of the other articles i have cited above. --Striver 01:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A collection of conspiracy theorist soapboxery, backed up by fabulously unreliable crackpot sources (see Alex Jones) and original research. Owner of article has for a long time resisted improvement, making the article a detriment to Wikipedia's reliability. The article just keeps getting worse and worse over time. The subject is a borderline notable neologism at best; the conspiracy theory pushing just doesn't make it worth it. Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia without this silliness. Weregerbil 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Owner? Is that a insult? Have you tried to give any constructive advises or sugestions? Have you tried in any way to add and improve the article? If not, then help me now, since i do need help in improving the article. Alex Jones has been on Both C-Span (regarding 9/11 + The Neo-Con Agenda Symposium ) and CNN News (Regarding Charlie Sheen), so much for "fabulously unreliable crackpot". Consider his list of interviewd people before labeling somebody as "fabulously unreliable crackpot". How many Hollywood pictures have you appeared on? Oh, is that Zero? --Striver 22:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have tried and you keep reverting and making the article worse. If a nut appears on television he is still a nut. Please do not argue your view by speculating on what other participants have or have not done in their lives. Trying to marginalize the opinions of others by attacking their character is not appropriate. Weregerbil 08:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The question of how to have an article on a non-mainstream (contemporary) movement without using non-mainstream sources. The answer is that you don't. Not to suggest too much, here, but we shouldn't be reporting oddball stuff unless we have non-oddball sources. That's what Original Research is about. We report what others have reported. If we're taking direct evidence from someone like Jones and digesting it ourselves, then we're a secondary source -- we're journalists. Wikipedia is not a journalism site. Geogre 22:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many mainstream sources do you see in All your base are belong to us and Goatse.cx? There Is No Cabal? Xiao Xiao? Just take a look at Category:Internet memes. Further, there are more than Joenes, see the sources. --Striver 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seven years old and still a neologism? Does it need to break 15 years to not be it? This consept is broader than 9/11, although 9/11 is its apex--Striver 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What statment in the article lacks a reliable source? Give me a quote? Is there no reliable source for the claim that David Icke is attributed the phrace? Is there no relibale source for Alex using the phrace? Is there no reliable source on what events they view as examples of the phrace? There is no "reliable source" for 9/11 being a PRS, but the article is not claiming that. What specific statmen lacks a reliable source, making the article so unencyclopedic that it must be deleted? --Striver 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wp:NPOVNone of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper. Question: Is this a article about a minority view, yes or no? --Striver 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38800 google hits using parentheses establish notability. Wikipedia is used to report about those tens of thousands of hits, not possible to creat what already exists. Maybe you meant that wikipedia should not have a article about this topic? --Striver 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Google hits are not a measure to establish notability. JoshuaZ 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that was a new one... i for once have heard "Passes the goolge test" lots of times on afd... --Striver 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources are reliable and should only be used as sources in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. See WP:V. David Icke, a major proponent of this theory, believes the world is ruled by giant lizards, including the Queen, various world leaders, and Kris Kristofferson. As evidence, he cites the fact that none of these lizards has even threatened to sue him for making the claims. Ergo, the claims must be true. Ergo, we must delete this article. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin, what has Icke's belife in lizards-men has anything to do with the notability of the term or the verifyibility of people using the term? Are you sure you are not confusing "Truthness" of the term with Notability and vierifyiability? Nobody can argue that 38000 Google hits is non-notable, or that Alex and Icke are non-notable, and nobody doubds that the term is widly used in "modern conspiracy theories", so i dont get why you are involving "Truthness". Wikipedia clarly states that it does not care for truth, only NPOV, and this article is NPOV: It atributes everything as the beliefs of the people using the term.--Striver 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jayvdb and Skandha. SkeenaR 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (more specifically, rewrite and cleanup) David Icke and Alex Jones and their conspiracy theories within the overarching Category:Conspiracy theories are clearly notable and important social phenomena, even beyond the confines of the internet. Given the current introduction, "Problem-reaction-solution is a term used in some modern conspiracy theories. It refers to the idea that governments create pretexts for actions such as war, rather than act on existing situations with which they are presented," I think it's clear that the idea belongs to the domain of conspiracy theorists. As long as we ensure that the article properly notes that its claims are not accepted by the public as large, I vote keep. Sertrel 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, SlimVirgin and Coredsat. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... unless you need the space for more relevant articles. This is a concept which is out there and a page detailing it does give an overview of the concept. Simply because the concept fails to hold to any Popperian sensibility, does not mean that people will not need to be briefed on the concept. It is better defined here, where neutral and contrary people can get to it and make comment on it, than leaving it for people to read a bunch of conspiracy theorists when all they may want is the gist of the concept. It works the same way that it might be more helpful for people to get a rundown of the Elders of Zion than to read the thing. There is a large difference between the representation of a concept and claiming it is factual. Elders is not reputed to be factual, nor for that matter is considered well-researched or any of those other criteria people are claiming this needs to have. And yet, I would bet you have it here. Not because it is factual but because you are detailing the thing itself: a book or concept. As long as the article doesn't look like Icke and Jones could have written it, it really shouldn't be a problem. Otherwise I echo Sertrel and a couple others. Spoon!!
— Possible single purpose account: Spoon!! (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
Yes, possible single purpose account, but who cares, this is not a vote. Read the top template, the guy/girl made a very good point. This is not about "truth", we have the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Do we have any reliable source for the content of that ide being real? No? Oh, right, its supposed to be a fabrication? But it still has its own article? So, that would render void all claims for this concept to be true in order to merit an article, right? That is, unless you regard the Protocols as real...--Striver 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! I hope the closing admin reads that as a "keep" vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Striver (talk • contribs)
What I think she means is that, in its current state, it should be deleted, but it should be on something like Wiktionary. See also Transwiki Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting is not the way to go for solving content disputes. That is why we have a "edit this page" tab. Again, the voter just admited that the tactic merits an article. You dont put tactical terms on Wiktionary, they need a encyclopedic definition. Can you find Shock and awe on wiktionary? --Striver 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV means that articles should not state opinions as facts, but opinions as opinions. And that is what this article does, hence: the article is perfectly NPOV. If you mean that "More NPOV" means "Not containing what i disslike", you are arguing for the deletion of 90% of wikipedia. I really hate it when people twist the meaning of rules to promote their Point Of View.--Striver 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another one just spaming links and hoping some will pass. Wikipedia NOR does not stop any other representations of minority views, and there are only opinions stated in the article, an all the sources are used to show who holds the opinions. There is still no one that has explained with a good arguement why RS is relevant to quoting a opinion from the opinion holder. Is there anyone doubting that the people quoted hold those opinions? No? Then i gues there is no unreliablity in the sources. As simple as that. This is nothing more than the majority bashing a minority view. --Striver 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further, who cares who holds the opinions, this article is about a term, and the people voting has not even addressed why the term is unencyclopedic. It is not a neologism if it was used PROMINENTLY in a University in 1999, and is growingly used now in 2006. Notability is not in question, so there is nothing more that people not liking the content of the article using the afd as a source of venting their disslike, instead of actually doing some edits. --Striver 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There is some level of notability but the article may be an attempt to spread a meme. At minimum, considerable cleanup is needed. I'd lean towards deleting without prejudice; if concept gets more traction, re-create and bring to neutrality. ProQuest hits: Janitor strives to unlock code behind graffiti: Public scrawling not unusual, police say, By: Luecke, Jacob, Columbia Daily Tribune (MO), Jun 20, 2006, shows a propaganda effort in operation (graffiti-ists are writing the phrase on walls and the story is about a janitor trying to find out what it meant). It goes back at least as far as 1998: Rainer Huck, The Salt Lake Tribune. Salt Lake City, Utah: Feb 8, 1998 pg. AA.7 is an opinion piece claiming global warming is a problem-reaction-solution fraud. Term is also used in an LTTE diatribe about a labo(u)r dispute in New Zealand: The Southland Times. Invercargill, New Zealand: Nov 24, 2005. There are a couple other less significant hits as well. Phr (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bro, if you view there is "some level of notability but the article may be an attempt to spread a meme" isnt the prefered solution to edit the article to fix whatever problem there is, instead of leting it get deleted? Afd's is not the way to correct content disputes. You just cited it being used in 1998 by somebody else than Icke, this totaly demolishes the neology claim. If i may ask, why could hit be "an attempt to spread a meme"? --Striver 14:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an engine for guerilla marketing. Phr (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont realy care if the hegel link stays, im just trying to save the article. We could formulate it to say that this guy associates it with Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. --Striver 17:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed about preferring that earlier version. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That version is much better. If preferred, people could take the list to a different article. Also, that way the original article will not likely be nominated again.Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im not saying that i do not need RS since i am documenting opinions, i am sayin that NOBODY IS ARGUING THE REALITY OF THE OPINIONS! Is there a single person here that doubds that Icke or Jones use the phrase? No? Then why are you citing RS?! Their own wrods is RS for their own opinion, or is somebody argueing that "Jones words is not a reliable source for Jones views"? Is it?! Damn, i get uppset on hearing that sort of arguement! Per AnonEMouse above, People need to diferentiate between a article about something that is "complete bollocks" and a article that is complete bollocks. The Protocols of the elders might be CB, this term might be CB, but citing CB is not a good arguement for deleteing the Protocols of the elders article, nor this article. --Striver 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete A nn variation on dialectics. This article does not appear to document an existing (notable) world view or argument type, rather than attempting to sculpt, de novo, the phenomena from the raw materials of Icke's writings. This article serves to form a non-existant into being, to create and promote, more than document. Hence it's WP:OR. Concerns about WP:V & WP:RS are also valid. (Disclaimer: these criticisms do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rothschilds and other Reptilian_humanoids, jewish world conspiracy, or other usual Icke villains). Pete.Hurd 17:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again: "these criticisms do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rothschilds and other Reptilian_humanoids, jewish world conspiracy, or other usual Icke villains". Has the article claimed so? If yes, were? --Striver 17:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim that the article is making thing up, just look a one randomly selected source in the article to clarly prove that the consept exists just as explained in the article, outside the article. --Striver 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being upset... --Striver 18:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, maybe you can show me WHAT SPECIFIC CLAIM in the article is either WP:OR WP:V WP:RS? Or did you just through them out and hope they would stick? A single quote from the article? --Striver 18:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable conspiracy terminology, found in conspiracy sources. If anyone hasn't noticed, the term conspiracy theory is being used in the media more and more every day, the NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, CSPAN, on every right-winger soap box trying to trash them, etc. While many may want to make CTs go away, they are instead growing more popular by the second, and like it or not, Alex Jones is also growing in popularity by the instant. The question one may ask is why. But if we are denied the info to do proper research about who they are and what they are saying and why, at places like wikipedia, we won't be making the CTs go away, we just will understand them less. I don't agree with anything from Icke and don't especially adore Jones, but there is a massive gravitating towards CTs for a reason. Is it because the public knows they are being lied to, as the Pentagon just showed us? Or is something else going on. Pretending that these people are non-notable because they aren't the subjects of Newsweek and the WSJ isn't going to make them go away. bov 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I think the other keep votes here have made strong cases for its inclusion. It does not appear to be OR at all, and presented in a way that it does not assert opinions - it reports opinions, which is acceptable. --Aguerriero (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I can't find and any basis for violation claims. Work is based on theory, it is not up to us to request a prof. of any theory, we simply write them. --TARBOT 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I am sorry, I used IE, I should have used firefox for main account not the bot account. --Tarawneh 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please check TARBOT for the announced link to my we page in ar.wiki I have more than 11,000 edit there [2], 168 edits is enwiki [3], 3496 edits in commons including 2372 uploaded image to commons [4], I have contributions in meta, in foundation and more than 16 other wiki. --Tarawneh 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just because conspiracy theories are notable does not mean that every minutia is. This phrase is not used and hardly discussed outside of the conspiracist circle, and it goes into the realm of fancruft. Lazybum 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is this bad faith yet? Maybe next time it's brought up for deletion? No? Well, maybe the fifth or sixth time, then? See you there! Edogy 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Less than fifty edits, third in ten weeks. Will (Take me down to the Paradise City) 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What are we doing now then, discrediting every relative new user that is not addicted to Wikipedia? The user above has not many edits, but he certainly is not biased towards this article or created as a sockpuppet for this. Please remember that this is a discussion rather than a vote, as is stated above. If Edogy wants to give us his 50 cents on the matter (although not stated very neutrally, he brings up a valid point, that of possible bad faith in the nomination), he should not be reacted upon like this. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 20:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I take exception to the accusation (or pondering aloud, or whatever) of the nomination being in bad faith. Both previous times the article was kept because there was no consensus, because the discussions were absolutely inundated with sockpuppets and/or "single purpose accounts". It is not as if the Wikipedia community unanimously decided to keep it. The bottom line is that the article is of circumspect validity, and that is why I nominated it. Byrgenwulf 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I take exception to the continual attempts to discredit those who want to keep it. Reinoutr is quite right, this isn't a vote, and everyone is entitled to a say. As you know, where there is no consensus we keep articles. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you raise it at the relevant policy page. Oh, and "circumspect" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means[6]. --Guinnog 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to discredit anyone here: remember that, in my nomination, I stated clearly that this isn't a vote. I was merely pointing out that this isn't a bad faith nomination, and that previous AfDs didn't have "keep" results, but "no consensus", rather. I have no problem with that either: I was merely clarifying my own motivations, which I am entitled to do, am I not?
And "circumspect" means exactly what I think it means, thankyouverymuch (said Humpty Dumpty to Alice). Maybe "dictionary.com" doesn't think so, but I just looked it up in a real dictionary (you know, with pages?), and am satisfied that I used it correctly. Please be more circumspect when attempting to correct people, and look up the term "transferred epithet" (and if you look carefully enough, you might find a very small case of zeugma back there somewhere: life's too short to use language plainly, don't you think?) : P
On the other hand, Striver has been very busy arguing with every "delete vote" - not that I blame him (on the contrary), but let's not start employing double standards, shall we? Byrgenwulf 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never stated that I felt the nomination was in bad faith and that certainly is not my opinion. I stated that Edogy made a valid argument in a discussion and that it therefore is not fair to treat him as a sockpuppet just because he has only few edits. And yes, I also feel that Striver is overdoing it with regard to commenting on every delete vote. Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shall we stop having a meta-argument here then? I'm battling to count the number of colons I have to place before my comments! Byrgenwulf 21:28, 5 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Problem-reaction-solution&oldid=67942622"