Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetris 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 closed as keep enough significant coverage of the concept to make this not a neologism. No comment on renaming of the article as that is not a debate for AFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tetris effect

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

Delete. Neologism. Endless Dan 16:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep WP:NEO: "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term." There are reliable sources about the term. The paper "Stickgold, R., Malia, A., Maguire, D., Roddenberry, D., & O'Connor, M. (2000)", the Scientific American article, and the Wired article to name a few. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 16:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Arichnad. The sources presented are sufficient to sustain an article on the concept. JavaTenor 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Sounds like WP:NFT but appears legit. —dgiestc 16:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a perfect example of the kind of neologism that should be kept; it's well sourced, with enough material to write an interesting article around. Thomjakobsen 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Hate to be a downer here, but I don't see evidence of this Neologism's use or acceptance in language. Needs reliable sourcing, the 4 given sources are inadequate. The first "reference" is an abstract (I'm not willing to buy the full article), but it's called "tetris dreams" and doesn't refer to anything as "the tetris effect" in the abstract, leading me to believe that it won't later on in the story. The second reference (Wired, 2005) never uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" either. The external links: Scientific American article doesn't say "Tetris Effect" anywhere. The only one of these 4 supposed sources that uses the phrase "Tetris Effect" is the Wired 1994 external link, hardly current and definitely not establishing WP:N. The phrase only appears once and in no way is doing so as establishing that "Tetris effect" is something even coined. The only GHit I got making heavy mention of "tetris effect" was this one, but I'm not sure of the sources reliability. Keeper | 76 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be justification for a move to whatever the SciAm article called it. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
'SciAm calls it's article Tetris Dreams, but I would argue that they are not attempting to create a new idea. The are merely citing a very small Harvard study (17 subjects) that used Tetris as a medium for analyzing dream v. wake states and how "what we do" can have an effect on "what we dream" I would vote delete for Tetris Dreams as well. Keeper | 76 20:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Total neologism that probably wouldn't even survive being on Wiktionary, but regardless has no place here. Burntsauce 22:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Keeper76. Neologism, no valid references. Corvus cornix 23:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but possibly rename. This one's a problem. It's a real phenomenon, widely reported, and even used as a research tool (see here and here). As such it's deserving of an article. BUT - it hasn't yet gained a consistent scientific name, so any title we give it is going to constitute a neologism. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Appears to be sufficiently sourced, and with a quick search I found a few other references that appear to use the same term for the same purpose. Cogswobbletalk 13:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
    • After you make sure that these other references aren't parroting a neologism currently being popularized by Wikipedia, could you add them to the article? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 20:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The SciAm article is from 2000, the Wired article from 1994, and the Rainier et al. study in "Brain Research" from 1992, so the sources in the article establish it's hardly a neologism. --Victor falk 22:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree it's not a neologism. It hasn't even made that status yet, because the references don't even say, or rarely say, "tetris effect" in them. Keeper | 76 14:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There may be a place for an article on the confusion of actual and virtual reality, perhaps under Hypnagogic imagery , where this could be included as an instance, but there are insufficient references to support this term or this article. 09:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rename or merge. The title is an unacceptable neologism (not used anywhere except in the Wired article), but the research itself seems legitimate enough. Perhaps it could be renamed into something like Uses of Tetris in neuroscience, :-) or merged as a short section of the Tetris article or in some relevant article on a scientific topic (I have no idea which one, though). --Itub 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Whatever rename people decide on, this probably still has value as a redirect. —dgiestc 05:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to an appropriate location. Legitimate, well-sourced term, but it has to be very important to get an article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Not well-sourced at all, since the sources don't mention this term. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The sources prove it to be genuine and notable.--Bedivere 18:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources do no such thing, since this term is not even mentioned. Corvus cornix 21:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
      • What term do the sources mention for this phenomenon? Might as well rename to Nameless learning phenomena associated with Tetris. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 23:11, 7 October 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.