Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
m fixed lint errors – missing end tag |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 7:
The result was '''DELETED'''. This title is a neologism being pushed by a source that doesn't come close to [[WP:RS|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 [[WP:RS|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). - [[User:A Man In Black|A Man In <
===[[Problem-reaction-solution]]===
{{afdanons}}
Line 32:
::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? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 17:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 47:
*'''delete''' per nom, JoshuaZ, Allen3 & MONGO... /[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 18:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
::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. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
:::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? /[[User:Wangi|wangi]] 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 81:
*'''Delete''' article is based on a neologism, reads like a [[WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought|personal essay]], and is essentially created as a fork article to promote 9/11 truth points of view.--[[User:Jersey Devil|Jersey Devil]] 23:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
: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--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Total and complete lack of [[WP:V|verifiability]] from [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. This ''consept'' is [[WP:BALLS|bollocks]], pure and simple. [[User talk:RasputinAXP|<
:::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? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong delete''', conspiracycruft, no [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]. Heavily fails [[WP:NPOV]], and definitely appears to be [[WP:BALLS|complete bollocks]]. Article's existent fails [[WP:POINT]]. --'''[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User:Coredesat/Esperanza|<
::[[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.'' Question: Is this a article about a minority view, yes or no? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 00:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Conspiracy-cruft. If you want to establish notability for the term, don't use Wikipedia as a meme laundry. --[[User:Calton|Calton]] | [[User talk:Calton|Talk]] 00:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 131:
*'''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. [[User:Bov|bov]] 18:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''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. --<
*'''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. <s>--[[User:TARBOT|TARBOT]] 19:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)</s> I am sorry, I used IE, I should have used firefox for main account not the bot account. --[[User:Tarawneh|Tarawneh]] 20:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::Please check [[User:TARBOT|TARBOT]] for the announced link to my we page in ar.wiki I have more than 11,000 edit there [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=tarawneh&dbname=arwiki_p], 168 edits is enwiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Interiot/Tool2/code.js?username=tarawneh], 3496 edits in commons including 2372 uploaded image to commons [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=tarawneh&dbname=commonswiki_p], I have contributions in meta, in foundation and more than 16 other wiki. --[[User:Tarawneh|Tarawneh]] 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
| |||