Deletion of Problem-reaction-solution

Comment: but clean up. It's a notable term due to being repeatedly cited by a number of notable conspiracy theorists. This is not the same as saying ''the theory the term refers to'' isn't |complete bollocks, but the term is used widely enough. However http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Problem-reaction-solution&oldid=53717046 earlier versions of the page were smaller and better
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: While I might be sceptical about the validity of conspiracy theory concepts (in fact I think they are |complete bollocks too), they are a contemporary stream of human thought (albeit a minority viewpoint).  I think if somebody can be bothered to add a entry on this then why should it be deleted?  Flag it up as a conspiracy theory concept, if you must, but don't delete
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: WP:NOR, , per Virid, plus  and .  PLUS, it's been deleted once before.  Image:Matt_Devonshire2.jpg|20px
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:BALLS||WP:BEANS)

Comment: None of the sources are reliable and should only be used as sources in articles about themselves, and even then with caution. See . David Icke, a major proponent of this theory, believes the world is ruled by giant lizards, including the Queen, various world leaders, and Kris Kristofferson. As evidence, he cites the fact that none of these lizards has even threatened to sue him for making the claims. Ergo, the claims must be true. Ergo, we must delete this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: conspiracycruft, no |reliable sources. Heavily fails , and definitely appears to be |complete bollocks. Article's existent fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:BALLS||WP:POINT)

Comment: Claims of orignial research, non-verifiability and unrelibale sources are |complete bollocks, everything is stated as the '''beliefs of individuals''', everything is '''sourced to those individuals''' and nothing is OR. Claims that self published sources are non-reliable is dishonest twisting of wikipedia policies, a website is a perfectly ok source of information for '''the belifes of those who wrote it'''. This very cumbersome wording gets http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&q=%22Problem-reaction-solution%22&btnG=Google-s%C3%B6kning&meta= 38 800 Google hits WITH quotation marks and millions of people subscribe to the views of Alex Jones. This whole afd is nothing more than a atempt to suppres the minority view
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: WP:NOR, . &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: While this term may be relatively new, this is not a new concept.  The article is about a power play that has been attempted throughout history, with only a few notable successes.  In grade 11 economics, my class discussed similar strategies for macroeconomics, but I havent been able to find a more common term for the concept; if there is an exiting politics article for the same, I wouldnt mind if this article should be merged into another.  Personally I think that this page would be a good list of possibly unverifiable attempts of any government to attempt this type of thing.  The article currently focuses on current, more questionable attempts, but that can be corrected by expanding the list into earlier centuries, and by including more failures to balance the POV.  IMO this doesn't classify as original research in entirety: the term isnt coined by the contributor; for most of the examples, there is external opinion that this strategy was employed (of course it is un-cited in many cases but that doesnt mean it was original research); while it may be a |neologisms, it is worth including in Wikipedia as a record of either peoples perceptions or reality -- a rename or merge would solve this aspect of the problem
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Anything which is asserted as fact by {David Icke is pretty much guaranteed to be |complete bollocks
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BALLS)

Comment: per , , and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR||WP:RS)

Comment: since it fails to conform to policies such as  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: A nn variation on dialectics.  This article does not appear to document an existing (notable) world view or argument type, rather than attempting to sculpt, de novo, the phenomena from the raw materials of Icke's writings.  This article serves to form a non-existant into being, to create and promote, more than document.  Hence it's . Concerns about  &  are also valid. (Disclaimer: these criticisms do not necessarily reflect the views of the Rothschilds and other Reptilian_humanoids, jewish world conspiracy, or other usual Icke villains
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: WP:NOR|Original research that fails |verifiability due to the exclusive reliance on Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources as secondary sources|personal websites and Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites|partisan sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: Fails , , . A random collection of nonsense
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:RS||WP:NOR)

Comment: WP is |NOT Alex Jones's website
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)