Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy


 * 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   delete. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Gang Stalking Controversy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Highly POV article that draws some drastic original conclusions (i.e. gang stalking is a form of COINTELPRO). Article's author has been trying unsuccessfully to get this information introduced into Wikipedia for several weeks now, and had a similar article deleted via Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit. The article as it stands represents a rather serious fork of the material at Stalking. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE. The term "gang stalking" has numerous meanings, not just one, I grant.  There is controversy a-plenty as to whether the term is apt when used to label some of the wide range of phenomena it is used to label.  There are certainly people (let us call them "gang stalking deniers") with the theory that the widespread testimony of gang stalking is entirely attributable to persons suffering from paranoia giving false testimony of gang stalking.  On the other side, there are those (the COINTELPRO theorists) who theorise that all gang stalking reports are attributable to a renaissance of COINTELPRO.  But these observations - the ambiguities, the controversy and the prejudices of vocal minorities, are reasons for having a thorough, scholarly and balanced entry on gang stalking, not reasons for not having an entry at all.  The term has become a part of the language, and with good reason.  It would diminish Wikipedia to give in to one particular faction, however vocal.  Those whom I have called the "gang stalking deniers" would be the only beneficiaries of a deletion of the entry.  Given that it has been a long time since the former COINTELPRO inquiries, and the similarities between some gang stalking reports and COINTELPRO crimes of earlier decades, it might also be UNSAFE to suppress the entry.  And, deleting the entry would certainly pour fertiliser on the conspiracy theories.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Allman (talk • contribs) 20:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: this conspiracy POV-pushing has been an ongoing negative trend; note the history of it on Talk:Stalking, leading to emotional outbursts from dozens of IPs, etc. Interestingly enough, the NYT link provided to "evidence" that there is a distinction between psychosis and Gang Stalking paranoia is actually a far more instructive analysis of the mental issues involved, but certainly says nothing at all to substantiate that this is a real problem as opposed to a psychosis or "shared belief system." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE, opponent arguments FAIL to address how this page does not qualify as a CONTROVERSY. There are clearly strong opinions on both sides.
 * Furthermore the affidavit by Ted Gunderson does relate Gang Stalking to COINTELPRO. And if not then only that section should be deleted.
 * The NYT article presents the psychosis point of view because this is a CONTROVERSY, that is what the title says. Advocates for deletion are clearly BIASED and only serve to reinforce the fact that this issue is properly defined as a controversy. --Paulc2 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — Paulc2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete. The few sources used that qualify as reliable do talk about gang stalking, but none of them mention anything about a controversy. Furthermore, we already have an article on cyberstalking. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE: The National Center for Victims of Crime, the largest government funded victims' group is receiving thousands of calls every month complaining about gang stalking nationwide.Italic textThis can be verified ny ANYONE by calling (contact information removed) . Surely there is a controversy as to whether there is a shared "delusional system" of countless thousanda of Americans or a COINTELPRO-style social engineering scheme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.217.169 (talk) 20:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.217.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the only way to verify the information is to contact the organization directly, then the information quite simply does not meet our guidelines for verifiability. What printed or online reliable source from a third party may we consult to verify the information? Please note that if there's no such source, then we'll have no choice but to side with the government that doesn't want you to know; however, we will not stand in your way when you take your information to Facebook or Twitter. (hint, hint...) --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no evidence of any notable controversy here, in that no reliable sources have been produced that say that this is anything other than a delusional conspiracy theory. For related discussions about previous attempts to get this rubbish into Wikipedia see Talk:Stalking, WP:Articles for deletion/Gang stalking and WP:articles for deletion/Cause stalking. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


 * DO NOT DELETE. There is an affidavit of a former FBI Chief on gang stalking. There is a link to a Santa Cruz Police Lieutenant's press conference on gang stalking. There are official D.O.J. documents showing 185,050 Americans stalked by teams or groups of between 2 and 50. Try reading the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.7 (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)  — 72.89.220.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Yup. I've read it all. Nothing that points to a C.O.N.T.R.O.V.E.R.S.Y. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Don’t delete: you may not !vote twice. A controversy is defined as: 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion. 2. contention, strife, or argument.


 * There is a Federal case pending on this issue. The Judge is expected to rule on it any day.
 * If the court rules gang stalking is going on then deletion is going to put Wikipedia in a potentially embarrassing position.

The opponents here are irrationally biased therefore should not be taken seriously. --Paulc2 (talk) 14:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that there's nothing more than a court case to point to the existence of a dispute, then I think Wikipedia should take its chances with the possible embarassment. Otherwise, every instance of someone fighting a speeding ticket would warrant a Wikipedia article. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Real professional for Wiki Editors to censor a pro-article user from voting twice when anti-article users are posting four times. What percentage of Wiki Editors are salaried government employees? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.218.64 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't vote multiple times, but you may add to the discussion without voting. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence for actual existence of the topic, at least as presented in the article. Not even a notable conspiracy theory. Amounts to publicity for the PI involved, and nothing more.   DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. This belongs to cyberstalking. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't Delete:'Bold textNot even a notable conspiracy theory?''Italic text'Have you looked at the Hundreds of Thousands of Google search hits for "organized stalking", "group stalking", "gang stalking" and similar terms. Are you a joker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.220.161 (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC) — 72.89.220.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Speedy delete. This contrived controversy is a smoke screen intended to distract brainwashed mind control victims from the prize, going into the Bioethics Commission hearing two days from today, where many mind control victims will be testifying. There is no such thing as gang stalking; it's an illusion created through brainwashing. MoreAwakeThanYou (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.