Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Targeted Individual


 * 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. Secret account 03:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Targeted Individual

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I can't find many reliable sources that discuss this topic. All of the sources given in the article are blogs and websites for "targeted individuals", or Examiner.com which does not have editorial oversight. (There is one link to Salon.com but it's an open blog thing... again, no oversight.) ... disco spinster  talk  04:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe that this is a very concise and objective definition of what a targeted individual is and this a serious growing problem in this country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.230.79 (talk) 00:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "This country" is meaningless in the context of an encyclopedia read and written by people from all around the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This appears to be a weird conspiracy theory being presented as fact, complete with what appears to be famous people being quoted entirely out of context in an attempt to lend credence to this nonsense. Even if this is a notable conspiracy theory WP:TNT is in order given that the article is presenting it as fact. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * See previous AfD discussions for the same topic at Articles for deletion/Gang stalking, Articles for deletion/Cause stalking, Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Controversy and Articles for deletion/Gang Stalking Lawsuit, and much further discussion at Talk:Stalking. This is a topic that has been pushed relentlessly by a few conspiracy theorists. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed - the NY Times story used as a reference in the article rightly describes this as being a dangerous form of paranoia, yet the article presents it as being something which is actually happening. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Conspiracy theory presented as fact, mixed in with a bit of WP:SYN from elsewhere to try and make it notable. The few WP:RS presented don't support the assertions of the rest of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * [facepalm] Delete or move to author's page - it needs to be re-written to remove paranoia bias, if notable at all EnTerr (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete - As the creator of the article, I'm (obviously) sure it shouldn't be deleted. It appears as though the main concerns here are the failure to present this article as a conspiracy, and its uncertain sources. First of all, this article is not different than many articles about conspiracy theories, and therefore if it is deleted for some reason, then many other ones should be as well. Secondly, I had no intentions whatsoever to write this article as a "fact" and hide the possibility of it being just a conspiracy (although thousands of people consider themselves as TIs, but I still edited it so it's more clear now). Interestingly enough, looking back I think I got so into the subject when I did it that I totally believed it's real, but who knows.. I'm sorry I can't quite distinguish between reliable sources and those that are not good enough, maybe I should do a little more research on that. I've backed up the entire content with links to different sources and have added very good ones, so I suggest that if there's a questionable one, I'll quickly remove it and the info based on it. Thanks, Shalom11111 (talk) 03:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article still centres around assertions that the self-described "TIs" are actually being targeted by actual psychotronic weapons etc., without any reliable sources to back this up, thus failing to meet the WP:V criteria. On the other hand, there are a couple of reliable sources that meet WP:RS that attest to the existence of the whole "targeted individual/gang stalking" thing as a conspiracy theory: see Stalking. In the absence of any other sources that meet WP:RS, perhaps this could be made into a redirect to that? -- The Anome (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi The Anome and thanks for your response, I agree with what you said. I'll today try to reshape the article so that it won't mislead readers to think this is a scientifically proven phenomenon (even though electronic weapons etc. are), and that as of now it's in the category of a conspiracy. However, I wasn't able to fully understand what you meant by saying it could be a made into a "redirect to one", are you suggestion that I take and add sources from here? please elaborate.. Shalom11111 (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as affirming a subject's notability doesn't necessitate granting it any legitimacy. In this case, it's a totally nutty conspiracy theory but a notable one nonetheless. I think this article is in need of serious editing for bias, not deletion. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which sources do you consider to be sufficient to make this a notable conspiracy theory? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and possibly redirect to Stalking. I have gone through all of the sources presented in the article and tagged them appropriately. Most of them are clearly unreliable self-published sources. Of the rest all except one make no reference to anything resembling the content of this article. That just leaves a New York Times article that presents this topic unequivocally as delusional behaviour, rather than the "he said... she said" type of open issue that this article presents even after Shalom11111's edits that are claimed above to present this as a conspiracy theory. That NYT article's contents are completely misrepresented in this article and already summarised with due weight at Stalking. Whether to have a redirect should depend on whether the phrase "targeted individual" (with lower case "i") is commonly enough used with this meaning to warrant such a redirect, something I haven't yet looked into, but if we do decide on a redirect the history of this article should be deleted first because it contains nothing verifiable, and keeping it can only serve to fuel the conspiracy theory. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

keep!! guys what is argument all about? targeget individuals is simply just a term used to refer to people who are being stalked! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking so the same sources can be used, and the old ones removed, and there's no problem! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.223.212 (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2013 (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.