Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streisand effect

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streisand effect

Streisand effect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is about a neologism coined by a non notable blogger as a joke. I believe this topic is more suitable for Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. The list of "Notable cases" of the "Streisand effect" all look like original research to me. I have no doubt that censorship sometimes backfires, but from now on are all such events to be referred to as examples of the "Streisand effect"? A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary, or Wikipedia. Pixelface 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep this is not just being used some blogger, the effect is being quoted in reputable publications such as - [1], [2], both of which agree that this has become a real term. Davewild 19:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - A couple of references repeating a recent neologism do not establish true notability. Maybe in a few years if it's still in use elsewhere and has a number of real sources. Content of article is currently unsalvageable except as minor mention on Streisand article or perhaps elsewhere. DreamGuy 20:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Forbes article - [1] above - even has the same title as this article. I agree, it's not the best-written article I've ever read. But we don't have crystal balls to know whether this will still be mentioned in 5 years. All we can say it is being mentioned now by more than one well-known source. I think it therefore scrapes in as notable.Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 20:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - well sourced, encyclopaedic. The origin isn't important here - it's been adapted into the mainstream, apparently. WilyD 20:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability is easily established by the Forbes article linked above. — brighterorange (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - I buy it. Forbes is good enough for me. Philippe 23:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This sounds familiar, hasn't this been in AfD before? At any rate, I remember seeing some notability here, thus my !vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 1) The phenomenon exists (see the list of notable cases), you can't deny that, no matter what you call it; 2) the name has stuck and slowly going mainstream (Forbes et al.) -- Wesha 20:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Another reference from Slashdot, and although the name may not be perfect, the effect is real. If someone can point to a better-named article with better sources, I might change my mind. - Tor Pettersen. 03:08, 14 June 2007 (GMT)
  • Keep. This is common usage beyond a few bloggers, it is most definitely useful. --Nicklinn 03:17, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. WiccaWeb 03:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's a full-blown cultural phenomena. Wikipedia is the right place to document it. Besides, if this article gets censored, I'll post it all over the internet ;) Kenheut 06:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Deleting it will only confirm that powerful and well-connected people can have their way over lesser people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.205.253.95 (talk • contribs)
  • Well of course they can -- that's why what makes them powerful after all. ;) Oh yeah, and Keep. — Feezo (Talk) 08:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Even if I'm not sure if all the examples fall under the definition, I found it a useful article.-- Adriaan Renting 14 June 2007
  • Keep - Term might not be perfect, but phenomena is important (this might be even larger than current scope). -Yyy 09:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - It's a common term for a real phenomenon, and the article is well-referenced enough to prove that. Rob T Firefly 13:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable enough for me. Forbes is a good reference. Eoseth 14:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the effect is real and the article is well-sourced. Whether "Streisand effect" is really the best word for it isn't as clear to me (the effect long pre-dates 2005 and even predates the internet depending on how broadly you define it). But that's not a reason to delete the article (unless perhaps if there is another article under another name which covers this subject, which I didn't find, and I did look at Censorship). (Oh, and yes the article could be better focused and well-written but it doesn't seem so hopeless that we'd delete on those grounds). Kingdon 12:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
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.