Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streisand effect (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep. (Non-admin closure). The nominator has requested withdrawal and every comment was for Keep. Ritchie333 (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Streisand effect

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Streisand effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A number of editors deem the content to be unencyclopaedic, the quality of the references is disputed, and the actual use of the term in the wild is also disputed. See talk for further details. Star-one (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples within the article

The principle problem is there is no evidence of real people in the wild actually using the term as a real, common-use term, without doing anything other than linking to this article as a definition of the term, or linking to the original article in which the original individual coined the term - so arguments that it is a real term used in common discourse amount to argument by repeated assertion, entirely self-referential.

The examples of the so-called 'effect in action' quoted within the article are just a list of examples of censorship backfiring; on that basis, the phenomenon - if there is one - could just as easily be called the AACS Effect, or the Project Chanology Effect, the Virgin Killer Effect, or the SuperInjunction Effect, or whatever; any journalist could write an article in a reputable news source about censorship and quote any of these examples, and describe it as an example of the (Whatever) Effect, and that would make an article about the (Whatever) Effect no more or less notable than this one. Star-one (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Wesha (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mainstream media article cited has clearly just come to this Wikipedia article and cribbed the first few examples off it, so it's basically just propagating the self-referential nature of the term rather than providing evidence of it being a real term adopted in the wild. Star-one (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not true that there is no evidence that people use the term. Egregious WP:BEFORE failure as a simple search would have brought up reliably published books and news sources that use the term, explain its origin, and apply it to other cases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Forbes and the Globe and Mail are good enough reliable sources for me; there were literally more sources in my search that appeared reliable than I had time to investigate. I have personally seen this phrase used in a number of different contexts, some reliable sources, some not, but sufficient to convince me that it's passed into public parlance. Ubelowme U Me 17:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Forbes, Times and other news outlets have used it. If references to those are missing from the article, THAT's what needs to be fixed. The problem is that too many people are happy to add examples that are examples of the effect itself, not the examples of the use of the term. And then the latter eventually end up being wiped out during a new round of cleanup. -- Wesha (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current article is pretty poor, the section full of trivial mentions should go. Let's not pretend it has no issues. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not defending the article as a whole, I was defending the article against the charges made - which simply does not hold water. --haha169 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While Star-one does highlight some issues, some of the refs above by Dylanfromthenorth show notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I only see two on the talk page that wish it deleted and one is the proposer. I agree that the critera should be decided to remove any that are actually not the effect. It was brought up that the term 'Streisand effect' should be used in the source. Some sources may describe the actual effect without naming it though. These entries may need case by case consensus.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - 34 references and deletion is asked? Nonsense. It's one of the most notable expressions ever. The page has issues? Edit, don't delete. --Cyclopiatalk 11:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much everybody agrees that the overwhelming majority of those 34 references are quite weak.Star-one (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK, point taken; it's clear that there is unanimity in keeping the article. Accordingly, I shall look again at the areas of the article which particularly weaken it, and then others can look into improvements.Star-one (talk) 11:17, 23 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Streisand_effect_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1138281803"