Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem Reaction Solution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Reaction Solution

  • Speedy Delete the page has been deleted before which makes it subject to a speedy. Unfortunately the User:Striver who made the page has removed the speedy deletion tag on this article [1]. The article itself is nn and POV trying to promote Alex Jone's movies Jersey Devil 11:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the term is notable, Google gives 25 000 hits on "Problem Reaction Solution" [2] and 27 900 000 hits on Problem Reaction Solution [3]. Alex Jones movie is not THAT popular that i would creat 25 000 hits on a TERM used in it, clearly proving that the term is used widely outside the movie. It is actally irrelevant from where the term comes, 25 000 hits is enogh to make it notable in it self. Being delete once does not mean that it should remain deleted for ever. This is a new and fresh afd--Striver 12:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Speedy Delete as recreated content. I'd do it myself, but the page creator and I edit some of the same pages. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't David Icke the guy who dresses all in blue turquoise and says lizardmen rule the world? If he agreed with me, I'd keep quiet about it. Tom Harrison Talk 13:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe you find yourself in good company with Art Bell than. You share his views on Sept11. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Would be of dubious notability even if new. It appears to exist online almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories, e.g. [4] / [5] . This article is one of several equally POV-heavy (and badly written) 9/11-related articles recently created by Striver. Sandstein 13:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You mean its not notable since its used " almost exclusively in the context of cranky 9/11 conspiracy theories"? So, does that mean that Fard is also non-notable since it is used exclusivly by Muslims? Could you point out the pov, so i can correct it? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, there are a lot more Muslims than 9/11 conspiracy theorists. That's why an Islamic concept such as Fard can be of significance to a great number of people, even non-Muslims. Problem Reaction Solution, on the other hand, seems to be a neologism used only within a small circle of persons with no discernible impact on the broader discourse (on 9/11 or anything else). See WP:NEO (or maybe, considering the seriousness of all this, rather WP:NFT :-). Greetings, Sandstein 14:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
It being prominently used among the 9/11 truth movment makes it notable, it is not a neologism, it was used surely more than 20 times in 1999 by David Icke when in University of Toronto Only that in it self makes it notable. --Striver 14:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, even then it warrants at the most a well-sourced brief mention in the main 9-11 conspiracy theories article, and not its own article. Even so, what you call the "9-11 truth movement" is objectively the viewpoint of a small fringe minority (and for most others it's somewhere between paranoid silliness and downright offensive). All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing. Greetings, Sandstein 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 9/11 neologism, it was used prominently already in 1999.

Further, not that it maters, the 9/11 truth movement is not a "small fringe minority". Does "small fringe minority" include a:

No? BUT, even if it was a "small fringe minority", deleting it is a violation of Wikipedia policies. All those articles of yours might be seen as being designed to give this fringe more weight than they are due - or, in other words, as POV-pushing" is against Wikipolicies:

None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth.

Source: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight

IF we can have Ass worship, why not this? --Striver 17:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Speedy delete unencyclopedic, fails to demonstrate notability.--MONGO 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

25 000 google and you say " fails to demonstrate notability"? --Striver 13:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Google does not mean everything for notability, you know. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
No, but Alex Jones, Dacid Icke using the term does make it notable in it self, even witout 25 000 google hits. You got several articles starting and describing the term, that does make it notable in it self. You see films using that term 30 times, that makes it notable. --Striver 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, unencyclopedic, nn. --Terence Ong 14:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per Mongo and Ter. --Aaron 17:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to plain old delete as crankcruft following Striver's expansion of the article. --Aaron 17:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, we can have Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, but not this? Common people, what are you doing? --Striver 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We're following WP:CSD. --Aaron 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant keep. Striver's often divisive and inflammatory, and openly admits that his views are waaay outside the norm. I think it's because of these things that this article is getting deep-sixed. This term has been used in news sources, and is in use all over the web. Yes, often in tinfoil-hat-style conspiracy diatribes. But it's in use. (Striver's also right about ass worship -- wtf is that about?) This also seems a lot like an extension of the "Rally 'Round the Flag" effect, which seems to be the academically accepted version of this same concept (i.e., no shady government conspiracies, lizard men, Illuminati, space Nazis, etc.). If that article had been written, I'd suggest merging this content over there. In fact, as it stands, if this article survives (doesn't look promising), I'll probably move it to Rally 'round the flag and rewrite it... muahhahhahahahaha. JDoorjam Talk 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Ehh, nevermind. Upon review, there's not really much there that could be salvaged for Rally 'round the flag. JDoorjam Talk 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or Delete. This is a dictionary entry. The term satisfies (Wiktionary criterion) Idiomacity, but its Attestation is shaky. I think the citations give enough evidence of Attestation, but I can see how one could disagree.  Cdcon  19:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a neologism used by a small group of people. I doubt that it would be of much interest to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 21:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

something used in 1999 is not a neologism. How large is the group using Facesitting? --Striver 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Article is a one-liner neologism dicdef, followed by an unencyclopedic mess of 9/11 conspiracy theory POV ranting. Another example of a recent rash of such articles. Weregerbil 22:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think most of these recent deletion attempts are bogus. They seem more about suppression of ideas than issues with notability or POV. SkeenaR 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crankcruft. Ashibaka tock 22:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crankcruft is a fair evaluation. Zora 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm kind of wondering why it takes this article so long to get a point across, whereas divide and rule conveys the same general type of information with less filler. Maybe it's because divide and rule doesn't mention every single use of the idea in an attempt to salvage a semblance of notability. The article needs a major rewrite, and I'm headed to tag it with copyedit right now. Isopropyl 00:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, Alex Jones + David Icke != notable. Rhobite 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Crankcruft --rogerd 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

So you are deleting a article that gets 25 000 google hits and is a major term among a significant minority, only since it haves to much information? --Striver 01:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Page is updated, votes regardin neologism and content must be re-evalutated. This still gives 25 000 google hits. --Striver 23:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Undecided: It seems to be a real term for a real technique, but the application of it to the September 11 attacks is pure crankcruft. --Carnildo 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Still delete as crankcruft; this article does not improve by the citation of "the english David Icke" [sic] and the likes of him as an authority. Sandstein 06:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Guys, you are confusing notability and verifaiability with.... i dont know... The term is real, what it means or is used for is totaly irrelevant for the keeping or deleting of the article! --Striver 11:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Still delete as one-liner neologism dicdef followed by a couple of pages of non-encyclopedic 9/11 conspiracy theory cruft and a laundry list of individual peoples' opinions (now complete with Adolf!). An article that professes to talk about something, but in reality is an opinion pushing piece about something totally different. Updating the page by adding even more cruft doesn't make the it better because the cruft is the fatal flaw in the first place. Weregerbil 15:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this non notable, but Ass worship, Divide and rule, Facesitting, Smotherbox, Body worship or even Queening stool, is not? Give a answer to that! Your only propblem is with what the term is USED for, not notability, and that is censorship. Content with articles are dealt with, that called editing, problems are addred at talk page. You dont delet a perfectly verifiablen and notable word over conten issues! Why not delete Islamofascism (term)?--Striver 15:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you improve the article so that it is NPOV? So that nobody reading the article can guess that you have a POV agenda on 9/11, anti-SomeCountry, or anything else? I could cut the Example and Use sections but I fear fierce resistance and drawn-out rv wars to any POV-neutralizing edits. Weregerbil 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
So you are meaning that the article is being delete since its being accused of being POV, without any atempts to NPOVing?`--Striver 16:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
No. I vote delete as one-liner neologism dicdef (incidentally followed by a couple of pages of biased chatter). Is there a real article waiting to be born? A verifiable article about a notable term, not about 9/11 conspiracy theories and anti-SomeCountry propaganda? I don't see it happening due to circumstances, but will be happy to be proven wrong! Weregerbil 16:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Something is NOT a neologism if it was used in the 1990. It is notable, 25 000 google hits. It is used by the most prominent conspiracy theorist, again making it notable. and its greatly more notable, used and contentfull than Queening stool. You are obviously agendadriven.--Striver 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I got 61,500 hits on "red suspender viola". You can get multiple Google hits on the oddest things. Zora 01:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I got Zeor (0) hits [6] --Striver 02:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you used quote marks and I didn't. Zora 03:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right, I do have an agenda: make Wikipedia a reliable source of information. It is my opinion that this article has a snowball's chance in hell of being a positive contribution to the quality of Wikipedia. This is due to what I perceive to be fierce resistance to making it anything but a laundry list of anti-SomeCountry propaganda and 9/11 conspiracy theorizing. I will be happily surprised by being proven wrong! And I will now be waiting quietly for that to happen, because anything I say will just probably make the resistance dig in deeper in its trenches. Over and out. Weregerbil 18:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I would like to inform the readers that Weregerbil has made zero (0) atempts of editing this article. As if it matered, POV issues, if they even existed, are to be solved by editing and talk page, not deleting the article. He is all talk. --Striver 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Weregerbil is under no obligation to attempt to edit an article before joining its AfD discussion. And WP:GD makes it clear that when an article's POV issues are considered extreme enough, an AfD is a perfectly acceptable alternative to "editing and talk": If the text in question is a passage or section within an article that is otherwise satisfactory, it is usually removed by simply editing it out of the article. If, however, all or most of the article is problematic, the page itself may be removed. --Aaron 22:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me a single quote from the article that is POV? I doubt it. --Striver 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Problem Reaction Solution" on Google gives 26,200 hits, while - quite interestingly - "Problem Reaction Solution" -Icke gives 20,900 hits, meaning that claims that this is purely some Icke's mumbo-jumbo neologism are simply not true. Conspiracy theorists' speak? Yes. And why not? From what I've seen in the comments above, it is as if some people think that keeping this article on Wikipedia would be tantamount to saying that Bush orchestrated 9/11. This is not so: understand that it is perfectly acceptable to create articles about viewpoints that we find unappealing and/or downright wrong. This article doesn't do it in the best of ways, but this only means it should be improved. Yes, one could rightly stick NPOV/copyedit/cleanup/whatever notices on this article. But I see no good reason why it should be deleted as a matter of principle. GregorB 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does not appear to fall foul of the policy in a claer-cut manner at any point. Batmanand | Talk 14:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per GregorB. It is not a good article, but that is no reason to delete. David Sneek 17:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ... unfortunately. Basically like everyone else said. Yes, it's conspiracy-cruft, but it's referenced enough: the term is widely used enough that we should have an article on it. And we can't just redirect to Thesis, antithesis, synthesis because Hegel used TAS to mean many things, while PRS its really only used to mean "conspiracy"; the meaning is related, but not the same. However, I would be much in favor of shortening the article by quite a lot. It should be something like three paragraphs long: one paragraph defining the term, and referring to Hegel, one paragraph about the term's creationg by Icke, and one list of references, one line per reference, not one paragraph per reference. If the thing is kept, and no one else will do it, I can do that. GRuban 14:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Striver, please, you could at least try to make it a halfway decent article. As it stands, it's spectacularly bad. Personally, I think that we absolutely don't need it and should put all the "please improve me" templates we have on top of it. But unfortunately, I see no reason to delete it after the update. I'm tempted to abstain from my vote, but I guess that would be too much of a cop-out... Striver, I think you should cut the article in half at the very least, and try to layout it in a way that doesn't hurt my head. Please note that I don't have an agenda beyond keeping crappy articles out of Wikipedia as far as possible. I don't care about your conspiracy theories, as long as you clearly label them as such and keep them to a maximum of a few sentences here and there. That's about all consensus will give you, so don't fight it. You are entitled to an opinion, but NOT to valuable space in articles that should cover views that are way, way more subsantiated than yours.Mstroeck 21:57, 2 March 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.