Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (4th nomination)

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 delete. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 05:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reopening AfD on request. I had previously speedily closed the third AfD. Due to the greater than one month interval, I will instead open a fourth AfD and refer back to the third AfD for nominator's argument and reasoning. Safiel (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge- ~~This is the 2nd nomination in 2 months.~~ A need resources tag needs to be added, because there have to be sources for this. This is more than a definition for Wiktionary, because there is explanation or theory behind it. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 03:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- So where are those sources? Without them, how can we have a meaningful article, even as a stub? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I asked the closer of the previous AFD to reopen it, after I had closed Talk:Baader-Meinhof phenomenon#RfC:_Page_name.
It was clear from that RFC that editors were impeded from discussing the fate of the article by the lack of reliable sources. However, the 3rd AFD had been snow-closed by a non-admin only 16 hours after it opened, despite the lack of sources and despite the 2nd AFD having had much greater participation and led to the article's deletion for lack of sources.
This is a perverse situation. Notability is not an abstract policy. It reflects the fact that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable secondary sources, and without those sources a topic cannot be covered in accordance with agreed standards for verifiability. I have no dogs in this race, other than a desire to avoid this perverse situation of editors being unable to manage an article because of a lack of the reliable sources necessary for its existence.
I hope that this AFD will be allowed to run its full 7 days, so that editors can assess whether anything significant has changed since the second AFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a few more sources to the article, but they're not high quality sources. If I were to recommend keeping this article it would be because the term seems to have some small amount of traction and someone might actually want to look it up here. On the other hand, my real preference would for this to be a redirect to some more serious article on a psychological phenomenon, with perhaps a small section describing this light-hearted colloquial name for it. However, I don't know enough about it to recommend a merge target and the people who seem to know enough about it don't seem to be able to agree on exactly what psychological effect this is another name for. Thus I don't feel comfortable yet recommending a merge here; where would we merge it to? Perhaps if people who understand the issue can come to consensus on where it should be merged to it would be easier to come to a conclusion here.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The RFC reached no consensus on where if any to merge to. The lack of good quality sources makes it difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Attentional bias would be a good place for it, except it doesn't account for the surge of use of a rarely known word because it was used in popular media. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 17:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - List of cognitive biases, which includes a definition of the apparent synonym “frequency illusion”, would be another possibility, based on the definition in Arroyo 2013. ––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @alf laylah wa laylah: witt all respect to your efforts, I have to notice that all these sources you added are not reliable sources in the context of the article: they are not coming from experts in psychology or smth. All these articles speak of something else, then throw in a cute word, and then thorw in an explanation of this word, possibly even snipped off wikipedia :-) When I was looking at this article some time ago, I saw mutlitudes of such references, but added none for this reason: there references are useless: they are just usage examples and do not contribute encyclopedic context (beyond your slight original research: it is your observation that "Its usage has since spread to other areas of the United States[4] and elsewhere in the English-speaking world").Staszek Lem (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, I'm completely aware of all of that. It's why I put the quotes from the sources into the citations. I'm just grooming it for its big moment on stage, not arguing that it should be kept.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now I'm really confused. When searching the scholarly literature, this phrase seems mostly to be used to discuss the phenomenon of the seemingly anomolous support for the Baader-Meinhof gang among the German middle class or the seemingly inexplicably radikalisierten Kinder der Nazi-Generation. Perhaps even leaving this as a redirect without some kind of disambiguation would do our readers a serious disservice.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as confusing. The phrase “Baader-Meinhof phenomenon” occurs as a description of the rise and popularity of the militant group, the same way you could speak of the Tea Party phenomenon or Justin Bieber phenomenon. It is also the name of a specific psychological “phenomenon” or cognitive bias, which is the subject of this article. In practice it seems that context always makes it clear which is intended. ––Agyle (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps I spoke to soon. While the context always seems clear, at least one author (see books.google snippet-view) has used the term as a name for a phenomenon related to the militant group (in that author's definition, it seems to mean the state's overreaction to the militant group, which does not seem to match the more descriptive use of the phrase by other authors referring to the formation, rise, and activities of the militant group). If it is being used as a name in reliable sources, rather than as a general descriptive phrase, then some form of disambiguation is appropriate. ––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based strictly on the nominator's WP:ONEDAY and WP:OR grounds for deletion (listed in the 3rd nomination). I found five reliable-source books that mention the term. All are minor/trivial coverage of the topic (two are in fictional novels), but I think they invalidate the WP:ONEDAY basis for the third nomination, and validate Safiel's speedy keep closure of the third nomination based on WP:SNOW. If the deletion nomination were based on notability or some other grounds, that should be clarified so we know what we're trying to evaluate; I'm not going to delve into the topic more deeply than necessary.

Arroyo, Sarah J. (2013). Participatory Composition: Video Culture, Writing, and Electracy. Southern Illinois University Press. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-8093-3147-5. (“Baader-Meinhof phenomenon, or frequency illusion, a form of cognitive bias in which something that has recently been brought to your attention is “suddenly everywhere” with alarming frequency and regularity.”)
Penenberg, Adam L. (2013). Play at Work: How Games Inspire Breakthrough Thinking. Penguin Group US. p. 161. ISBN 978-1-101-62302-2.
Rabhan, Benji (2013). Convert Every Click: Make More Money Online with Holistic Conversion Rate Optimization. Wiley. p. 215. ISBN 978-1-118-75974-5.
Galchen, Rivka (2008). Atmospheric Disturbances: A Novel. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-374-20011-4. [FICTION]
Watson, Wendy Lyn (2009). I Scream, You Scream: A Mystery A La Mode. Penguin Group US. p. 107. ISBN 978-1-101-14065-9. [FICTION]

––Agyle (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're citing novels that contain the phrase as reliable sources that speak to its notability? And doing it with a straight face? And books on SEO-clickbait-blah-blah-etc.? Didn't it occur to you that everyone here already saw those and rejected them?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:03, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alf laylah wa laylah, no, I tried to make it clear that I am specifically not addressing notability, as that wasn't challenged in the most recent two AfD nominations. Tegrenath's AfD nomination contended that the topic was at least close to simply being made up (“Wikipedia is not for things made up one day” – see WP:ONEDAY). I find your attitude insulting and inappropriate; please keep the discussion civil. ––Agyle (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly continue to keep the discussion civil, yes.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was pushing for deletion a bit ago but people really seemed to be trying to figure it out. As it stands now, I think the state of the article and editor consensus is even worse than before. If there is any scrap of information to be salvaged, I propose it be placed into a page with a broader purview that others have mentioned, such as the list of cognitive biases.
Regarding citations, the entire backbone of the page is based on an e-magazine article written by "staff" that's 3 paragraphs long. I don't doubt the facts it conveys, but I don't see any sense in clamoring for reliable sources when the very definition of the article's topic comes from what I feel is a poor one. I acknowledge that it has begun to appear with more frequency in reliable sources but notability of the topic is only one small piece of why I support deletion. It's quite messy. Tegrenath (talk) 05:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After a diligent search, it turns out that while the meaning and usage of this phrase are easily established, there are no reliable sources which contain more than passing mentions or even, what's worse, mere uses, of it. Thus does it fail to meet the GNG.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the few solid references to the term are all in discussions of the group itself, and not about this cognitive bias. We might consider redirecting this to the group and adding things to the group's article regarding people's support for it, but having an article on a cognitive bias with this name is untenable. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The discussion has revealed no reliable sources which provide more than a passing mention of the topic. Without reliable sources, it fails WP:GNG because there is nothing on which to base an article.
The topic may of course be mentioned in any other articles, but there is no foundation for for a standalone article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is sufficient sourcing and sources available to support notability. Deleting it for a failure to find subjectively sufficient sources seems to have little value. Some articles are meant to be short.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 01:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, probably a bit more prevalent than your garden variety neologism, given that it's mentioned in sources like Arroyo listed above. But still no substantial and independent coverage, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:26, 14 February 2014 (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.