Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m fixed lint errors – missing end tag |
|||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
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 <span style="color:black;">'''Bl♟ck'''</span>]] <small>([[User talk:A_Man_In_Black|conspire]] | [[Special:Contributions/A Man In Black|past ops]])</small> 04:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
===[[Problem-reaction-solution]]===
{{afdanons}}
Line 23 ⟶ 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 38 ⟶ 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 72 ⟶ 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 80 ⟶ 89:
::: Google hits are not a measure to establish notability. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 01:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
::::Ok, that was a new one... i for once have heard "Passes the goolge test" ''lots'' of times on afd... --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 01:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''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. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
::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.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 08:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per Jayvdb and Skandha. [[User:SkeenaR|SkeenaR]] 04:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 89 ⟶ 98:
:::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...--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 13:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom --[[User:Rogerd|rogerd]] 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Bad article, but we need a definition somewhere. Should have an entry on wiktionary or something. <
:LOL! I hope the closing admin reads that as a "keep" vote.
::What I think she means is that, in its current state, it should be deleted, but it should be on something like [[wikt:|Wiktionary]]. See also [[meta:Transwiki|Transwiki]] '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:Sceptre|Take me down to the]] [[Paradise City]])</sup> 23:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
:::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? --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 96 ⟶ 105:
::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.--[[User:Striver|Striver]] 23:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:RS]]. —[[User:Viriditas|Viriditas]] | [[User talk:Viriditas|Talk]] 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. [[WP:NOR]], [[WP:RS]], per Virid, plus [[WP:BALLS]] and [[WP:BEANS]]. PLUS, it's been deleted once before. [[Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px]][[User:Morton_devonshire|<
::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. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Striver|Striver]] 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 108 ⟶ 117:
::Agreed about preferring that earlier version. --[[User:MichaelZimmer|MichaelZimmer]] ([[User talk:MichaelZimmer|talk]]) 16:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
::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.[[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 16:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete'''. Fails [[WP:V]], [[WP:RS]], [[WP:NOR]]. A random collection of nonsense. [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup>[[User_talk:Jayjg|<small
*'''Delete''' I feel unimpressed with striver's arguments that he doesn't need to use reliable sourced because he is documenting opinions. Frankly it seems like a cop out designed to include unnecssary pov without proper sources.- [[User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg]] | [[User talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg|Talk]] 17:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Line 122 ⟶ 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)
Line 129 ⟶ 138:
*'''Comment''' could this be merged somewhere? - [[User:f-m-t|FrancisTyers]] [[User_talk:f-m-t|·]] 00:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' - as notable term in conspiracy theory jargon. Conspiracy theories are notable, and this is used enough to be notable as well. Just because conspiracy theories and their jargon are pretty silly doesn't make them unencyclopedic - people believe them, and thus it's notable and encyclopedic. [[User:Georgewilliamherbert|Georgewilliamherbert]] 01:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:*'''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 [[WP:CRUFT|fancruft]]. [[User:Lazybum|Lazybum]] 21:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''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! [[User:Edogy|Edogy]] 14:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
**Less than fifty edits, third in ten weeks. '''[[User:Sceptre|Will]]''' <sup>([[User_talk:Sceptre|Take me down to the]] [[Paradise City]])</sup> 20:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
***'''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 [[User:
::::*'''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. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 20:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::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[http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/04/04.html]. --[[User:Guinnog|Guinnog]] 20:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::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? [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:Reinoutr|Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr)]] 21:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
::::::::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! [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 21:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', per [[WP:V]], [[WP:NOR]], and [[WP:RS]]. --[[User:AudeVivere|<span style="color:#191970;">Aude</span>]] <small>([[User:AudeVivere|<span style="color:#006898;">talk</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/AudeVivere|<span style="color:#006898;">contribs</span>]])</small> 03:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>
| |||