Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot effect (3rd 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 Speedy close. I was extremely tired when I nominated this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot effect

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

Most of the sources don't even mention Slashdot, making this OR. "Cause" section is OR, "extent" section is mostly built on broken sources that I couldn't find backups of. Last AFD was in 2006. Article has been around since 2001. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It's notable enough, receiving coverage on Wired,[1], Business Week,[2], The Register,[3] the USGS,[4] O'Reilly,[5] and even a Ph.D. thesis.[6] Here the influence of Oprah on the web is being compared to the Slashdot Effect. There's also a mention on CNET.[7] Regards, RJH (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of the problem in finding sources is the multiple names - the article is really about the common theme behind Slashdotted, Farked, Drudged, etc., without really needing to be about any one of the news aggregator sites. It's a common and reasonably well-covered phenomenon as RJH noted. -- stillnotelf is invisible 02:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge into flash crowd - "Most of the sources don't even mention Slashdot" - this was the problem. The article was going to be moved/merged into "flash crowd" for a more generic title since the term "slashdot effect" is a bit too specific even though it was coined to describe the original effect from the site linkings. (This was the reason why the Slashdotted template was moved to High traffic). Also, there are many research papers and dissertations on this topic, and one of the citations refers to a Microsoft research paper using the generic term "flash crowd". - M0rphzone 06:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I just updated the dead links with archived versions. "Most of the sources don't mention the word 'slashdot'"? I counted 5 out of 8 links mentioning slashdot at least once in the url or page itself. "'Extent' section is mostly built on broken sources that [you] couldn't find backups of"? That section only had 2 dead links out of a total of 5, and one of the dead links had a mirrored link provided. - M0rphzone 06:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: And if still not convinced, this phenomenon has been attested and has caused effects to Wikipedia in the past. On 26 July 2001 Wikipedia suffered from the slashdot effect and posted the following message: "We have been slashdotted, so we are having a highly busy day. If you get an 'edit lock' error, please just wait a few minutes and submit again. Our system isn't accustomed to this much progress this quickly!" See the archive talk on previous articles that were "slashdotted". The effect of slashdotting was why the Wikipedia Volunteer Fire Department was created. This phenomenon has also been occurring as we speak, with high traffic and page hits on the Robert Moog article due to the Google Doodle and resulting search result hits. Definitely notable... - M0rphzone (talk) 07:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The news sources are a weak argument, but the presence of a Ph.D. dissertation specifically on this subject is convincing — you can't write a dissertation without extensive primary sources, and (1) the dissertation is a reliable secondary source, and (2) the existence of extensive primary sources makes the existence of other reliable secondary sources very likely. Nyttend (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well established term, more than neologism, has RS. Maybe nom would like to withdraw per first AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slashdot effect Widefox (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is a real, well-attested phenomenon, and the name is more widely used than flash crowd. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very well known, plenty of sources avaliable Egg Centri c 12:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I think it's time to coin the Wired rule: Any phenomenon covered in Wired (magazine) will be found to have sufficient online reliable sources that it will be found to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 05:04, 25 May 2012 (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.