Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

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 was Speedy keep This afd was created by an SPA and initially said nothing but "don't". The IP has been trying in vain to argue for deletion when there is clear evidence of notability. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 14:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

don't

it's a neologism... get rid of it. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The Baader-Meinhof phenomenon is well documented.[1] Is this a joke? Edit: The page could certainly use more citations though. --99.175.64.134 (talk) 22:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-documented by whom? Anywhere I see either is a link to or cites Wikipedia or the damn-interesting article. Both refer to a very specific coining by a single entry at a medium-sized newspaper's bulletin board from 1986. Since it has been reinforced by links and references to Wikipedia and Damn Interesting. the only reason it has gained any prominence is because people notice the phrase with the type of salience that the term attempts to describe. There are already entries for similar "phenomena" and cognitive biases with more established origins. Wikipedia does not get to be a citation unto itself. Corroboration from one other website and a long-defunct bulletin board is hardly authoritative or grants this terminology the type of significance to warrant a wiki entry. I am not a Wikipedian, but I know a neologism when I see one, and I know Wikipedia avoids entries that are unnotable neologisms. 67.198.55.10 (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you remove damn interesting and wikipedia from that same search it starts to come up very empty of references to this purported phenomenon: [2]

Keep; If a neologism, it's a notable one. It's strange how I hear this mentioned somewhere, and within a day or two I'm seeing it again in my watchlist, where it's slumbered for months. htom (talk) 05:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; The term is referred to frequently on talk-radio show/podcast "TBTL" on Seattle's KIRO 97.3 FM IMHO, this demonstrates that it's part of common parlance even if it is a neologism. I came to wikipedia to find out what it meant - where am I going to go if the article is deleted? Charliearcuri (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I'm not sure, but I think nominating articles for deletion is limited to registered users only--Unionhawk ^Talk 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term seems to be a neologism and might be more appropriately defined with a wiktionary article. The most convincing argument that it is notable enough to keep is its usage in a radio talk show, and the salience of the term itself. However, the term seems to be salient only because noticing of the term is an example of what the term attempts to describe. There is no scientific literature on the "phenomenon" and no notable reference in popular culture outside of internet posts : "Listen to this term I just learned because I read about it on DamnInteresting.com (or a site with a link to DamnInteresting.com) and verified its significance through Wikipedia (or a site that linked to Wikipedia)" types of references. It is an infrequency illusion. There is already an articles on salience. There are also articles on synchronicity, serendipity and coincidence. Perhaps a merge with one of these articles would be more appropriate than deletion... if so, I would suggest "coincidence."

It seems that the term itself has been elevated beyond its actual significance by the nature of the term itself and wikipedia's ability to artificially reinforce a false sense of importance via inappropriate editorial decisions. Cnkimpel (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.