Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:35, 20 April 2022

Revision as of 11:20, 3 March 2023

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 <fontspan colorstyle="color:black;">'''Bl♟ck'''</fontspan>]] <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 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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:#FFFFFF"; style="background: maroon;">&nbsp;RasputinAXP&nbsp;</fontspan>]] [[Special:Contributions/RasputinAXP|<small>c</small>]] 23:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

:::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|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">des</fontspan>]][[User:Coredesat|at]]''' <small>[[User talk:Coredesat|talk. ^_^]]</small> 00:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

::[[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)