Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professional victims

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. -Splash 20:10, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Professional victims

Unreferenced personal essay, full of existential fallacy. Delete. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: It appears that large portions of the essay are in fact copyvio from [1] and [2]. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

• delete as OR. Brighterorange 01:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Dyspepsia is not to be confused with encyclopedic content. Dreadful essay. Geogre 03:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with heavy rewrites. I see a gem or two in the dunghill. Cross-reference with Munchhausen syndrome, perhaps. The_Iconoclast 22:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable social phenominon. Klonimus 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Impressionistic, poorly referenced crap. That includes the title or anything it might contain in a future version. / Peter ^Isotalo 23:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Impressionism is one of the most beloved artistic movements. Klonimus 18:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • It means "writing anecdotally" in this context. This is not late 19th century painting. / Peter ^Isotalo 08:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Essay. Quale 18:08, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, insane personal rant without a single citation. Articles about supposed social phenominon need to cite other published studies on their topics; you can't just decide that something is a social phenominon on your own and rush off to write a Wikipedia rant about it. Aquillion 21:35, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Aquillion ManoaChild 20:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Do something that isn't delete This is the wrong title and heavy bias in the writing, but as others note, there are gems in here and a real social phenomenon being described. (btw, the opposite article is already written: Victim blaming.) SchmuckyTheCat 22:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this a real social phenomenon being described? Not unless it operates as described. Are there people who malinger? Yes. Are there people with factitious disorders? Yes. Do these people "harbor hate for those whom they perceive as 'not victims'"? Why don't you tell me? Because that's what this article is telling the world. Is it actual fact that "the people who are least likely feel like victims are those who have actually been victimized in the past... they refuse to let it happen again"? In short, there is nothing to build an article on here; it's all pure speculation on the author's part, and the fact that it's phrased as if it was objective fact only makes it worse, not better. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:54, 6 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.