Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem-reaction-solution

This lies somewhere between being complete original research, suffering from an incurable lack of reliable sources, representing an extreme point of view, and being a supreme example of complete bollocks. It was nominated twice before, here and here. I would ask the closing admin to pay careful attention to merits of argument here, rather than number of people voting. Thanks.Byrgenwulf 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable conspiracy neologism, not found in any reliable sources. In the past AfDs, David Ickes' use was taken as evidence of notabilty/it not being a neologism- I mean c'mon. Be serious here, ok. JoshuaZ 12:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP is NOT Alex Jones's website. KWH 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. Wikipedia needs less of this nonsense Will ^{(Take me down to the Paradise City)} 13:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above --Guinnog 14:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from me too. As per Byrgenwulf's rationale, this is both original research and bollocks. --ajn (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu