Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Shell Shock

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Oleg Alexandrov 05:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Internet Shell Shock

Obviously not a real condition--Shanel 04:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sounds like a neologism. Only one Google hit and that was on a chat board. Post again when and if this becomes established and recognized. ♠ DanMS 04:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Changed my vote again. I got this out of my system. Thanks Gadugi 04:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. Not that it isn't interesting. Citizen Premier 05:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, at least let me finish it before deleting it. I do have 5 days. Gadugi 05:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as OR and hopelessly POV. (The latter would be salvageable in some articles, but here there's no real evidence that these terms have any independent existence.) --MCB 08:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • You are free to help write it. Since you are a attorney. I get to write one good article about this -- even if it gets deleted. Gadugi 08:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Except that I'm not convinced ISS and ILM actually exist, except in the (POV) mind of the author of the article and/or the sole external source. MCB
• Userfy I really like the article but don't feel it belongs on wiki. Could we persuade the author to write some that do? Dlyons493 12:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, the author has been writing article that do belong. This is one special article the author is writing to benefit the community at large and humanity. It will probably get deleted, but will be saved before that time to preserve the content for perhaps being incorporated into other more relevant and less POV articles. 67.137.28.187 16:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm especially dubious about articles that are claimed to "benefit humanity". Wikipedia is not a soapbox. MCB 18:59, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
      • But the soapbox section does state that it's ok to write about internet phenomena and internet lynch mobs are an interesting phenomena as are their methods. They are certainly noteworthy for discussion. The article will be scrubbed in the next day or so to reflect a third person viewpoint. 67.137.28.187 20:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, severe POV, and non-established terms. Groeck 16:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy and delete, not a notable internet meme. Maureen O'Gara and G2News aren't recognized as authoritative or even reliable. They've been mouthpieces for non-factual FUD about the SCO attack on Linux, and this is original research that hasn't established any widespread currency. Barno 19:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I see those sources have been removed. Article has been improved but still hasn't persuaded me that this is anything of lasting significance under this name, or any title that we might put this under. No change of vote. Barno 01:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, OR. Dottore So 21:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, nn, OR. --fvw* 21:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• • Hi Fvw. You will find the final section very interesting reading which will be written this evening. I am glad wiki deletes articles based on their merits and policies. Nice to see you taking an interest in this article. I am getting this topic out of my system so I can go back and start on the laguage tutorial next. This is the one and only "controversial" article I plan to author here. Gadugi 21:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - paranoid (insert word). --MacRusgail 18:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Barno -- Dan Lyons of Forbes and Jeff Merkey (User:Gadugi) might love it if this became a prevalent internet meme, since it would assist their smear campaigns, but so far it hasn't. Pure existential fallacy; merely drawing up a laundry list of unverified accusations (like "my enemies are sociopaths who oppress my minority viewpoint!") and turning it into a bogus pseudo-medical classification scheme ("'Internet Shell Shock' is a syndrome experienced when one has one's minority viewpoint oppressed by sociopaths...") does not hide the bullshit. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:20, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Almost hoax. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 14:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - for all the above reasons and because the original author aparently only wrote it to get the subject of his chest. --MJ 20:31, 27 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.