Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-Reaction-Solution (second nomination)


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus Computerjoe 's talk 17:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem-Reaction-Solution

 * Delete nn neologism of Alex Jones and owned by one user. Here is the previous afd. Jersey Devil 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Not a neologism if it was used already in 1999. Specialy not of Alex if it was used by David Icke. Thanks for the insult of claiming i "own" the article. I have a hard time to see how this is not a bad faith nomination.--Striver 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I think this is valid entry and see no reason to delete. Edogy 23:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Actually, I just came across a reference to this article on Slashdot regarding domestic spying. The article could be better, but the topic is a keeper. --Jmccorm 00:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep? The example leaves a lot to be desired. Outside of the example, the article itself would be ok. - Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.71.51 (talk • contribs)
 * keep? A too-brief, but cogent and neutral explanation of what politicians do, and will no doubt continue to try to do no matter which party is in power. 01:37 14 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.156.93.249 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Article is of low quality and heavily paranoid. Examples are biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.68.192.227 (talk • contribs)
 * keep Very brief and lacking on content. A bit paranoid but it is a valid view and theory. I believe that the article should stay until a better one can replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.205.60.75 (talk • contribs)
 * keep Needs work, but I had been searching for a name for this *concept* for months, and now I have a name for it. Previously I was using "False Flag Attack" but that is not quite the same idea.  --David Battle 01:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I see no real reason to delete this, even though it does seem to need some major work and more/better content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow demon (talk • contribs)
 * keep I agree that this should stay, as long as it is presented as a theory I see no problem with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.202.179 (talk • contribs)
 * keep This term is in common use in the conspiracy community. I suggest that the concept needs to be addressed and that if the objection is the term itself, then the article may be merged into a more general conceptual article and forwarding simply provided.  Conspiracy theories themselves need to be very carefully vetted here to make clear that they are not the opinion of one person and they are not presented as fact.  However, the methodologies of corrupt national administration are largely known facts and have every right to be documented without regard to the debate about which leaders in which countries employ them and when. -  Greg Harewood

Guys, couldnt you at least get a account? It sure helps, and it only takes a second... --Striver 01:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I put up the template on top of this article. Lots of "new users" voting keep. Also, Striver, please stop trying to give advice to bypass the closing admin catching the new users, thank you.--Jersey Devil 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No risk for that happening, im sure you check out their history. But there is a chance they become actual editors if they take the time and get a account. For the record, i have no idea where they came from, i did not advertise this. --Striver 01:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Newbies likely followed a link from a comment on slashdot. --David Battle 01:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You got a link to it? --Striver 01:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid=15326966

Cool. Still think the article is non-notable? --Striver 01:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable neologism.  Even if the phenomenon is real or even widely imagined enough to be notable, this specific term (problem-reaction-solution) is as far as I can see only used by a single uninteresting conspiracy theorist and his epigones.  Bucketsofg✐ 02:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article seems sound, and is properly classified as Category:Conspiracy theories. ~Kylu ( u | t )  02:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep The most that might be wrong in this article is perhaps an implied bias against the Bush administration. But nowhere is the Bush administration, or even the US government directly mentioned in the article.  Informative, regardless of whether or not the title is a neologism.
 * keep Interesting & plenty of references ... maybe could use a clean-up, but I don't see why it should be deleted (P.S. I was linked here from /., and I don't have an account, but I don't think that should negate my opinion entirely ... I have made at least 50 constructive edits under this IP ... one of these days I'll get around to making an account.) 24.7.106.155 02:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Midnightcomm 02:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep? Good topic, bad article. Suggest the NPOV flag. Ztras 02:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Good topic. The whole point of Wikipedia is for good topics to have improving content over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.15.247 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete This is an undignifiable argument of obvious bias and paranoia. Appears to be just a rant. Topic itself lacks foundation to merit an article. Perhaps it could be included in a related article? BenWilson 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ztras. However, cleanup is definitely in order. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary for conspiracy theorist lingo.--Nydas 10:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: The concept has been a common meme even before 1984, and if this neologism is the first one in use to label it, then that's what it should appear under. If someone thinks there is a more appropriate title, then (s)he should suggest it. Regardless of my 'keep' opinion, I agree with some others that the article could use editing to sound less shrill and more in line with Wikipedia's trademark objectivity. Carl Smotricz 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep:Although short, this should stay so a more developed entry can evolve 84.41.133.231 11:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Is this even a serious attempt? I think the proposer of the deletion was trying to slip one by due to his political views. Ltbarcly 13:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but edit - it certainly needs work, but AFD is not the 'Solution' for this 'Problem'. --Random&#124;&#91;&#91;User talk:Random832&#124;832]] 13:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs a lot of work, but defintely without doubt keep. Needs to include both seeing every real problem (not just manufactured problems) as an excuse to implement actually irrelevent measures (that may or may not be believed relevant) as well as seeing the problems that are created by irrelevant measures as further problems to be solved with even more extreme or comprehensive irrelevant measures of the same type. (As an example, suppose this were true: Homelessness means we need drug laws. Drug laws create more homelessness. Means we need stronger drug laws. OR Terorists attack. Means we need to increase our military presense in islamic countries. More terrorists attack. Means even more military presense is needed. ) WAS 4.250 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism by Alex Jones. Slashdot comments (especially ones which use Wikipedia as a reference) are not sufficient evidence of notability. Rhobite 18:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Pretty light on the references, possibly a neologism. dcandeto 18:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Or move into a discussion of group dynamics. I'm not sure the ghetto of conspiracy thinking will encourage quality here.  This is a well understood tool in some management circles.  I am more familiar with "manufacture a crisis" or "precipitate a crisis", but those phrasings fail to articulate the hidden agena at work. Michael Buckley 21:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete neologism. Widely used in small circle(particularly one prone to self-propagandization on wiki - see socks) is not notable. --Mmx1 06:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Could use work but is fairly accurate description of phenomenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.26.80 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Doesn't seem POV to me (in the current state at least), it doesn't state any opinion except when quoting one as such. Hardly original research; might not be notable, but it gets about 35.000 hits on Google, only few of which are from Wikipedia. Topic seems to have been covered by (minor) press, more than once. LjL 19:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I think this is a well referenced model that captures a good point and worth of a definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.81.184 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep As references (and Slashdot attention) show, what began as a neologism by David Icke (not Alex Jones) has spread into the mainstream media and mainstream consciousness, to the point where someone might want to look this up. I agree that the article is light on content and needs work.  --Hyperbole 02:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I believe that this is a very important idea shown time and again throughout history. -- DragonGuyver 06:00, 17 May 2006 (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.