Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streisand 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 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

(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]

"No evidence" huh? Here's evidence for you, courtesy of Wiktionary:

“

No matter how effective your rebuttal may seem to be to you, a response will "bump" the problem into greater prominence and relevance in the search engine results, which then turns your headache into a migraine. This is doubly dangerous since "bumping" the negative information potentially introduces the "Streisand Effect" into the equation, which is something to avoid if at all possible. It is commonly defined as a phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information on the web backfires, causing greater publicity.

”

— John W. Dozier, Sue Scheff (2009). Google Bomb: The Untold Story of the $11.3M Verdict That Changed the Way We Use the Internet. HCI. p. 40. ISBN 0757314155.

“ A phenomenon dubbed the Streisand Effect has already sparked attention. Similar to the scarcity principle, when demands are made to remove videos or documents on the Web, hits for those materials increase dramatically. It seems a "forbidden fruit" is all the more attractive. ”

— William F. Eadie (2009). 21st Century Communication: A Reference Handbook. Sage Publications, Inc. p. 163. ISBN 1412950309. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |passage= (help)

“

Say you discover that people aren't just talking about you, they're bashing you. Should you step in and try to stop them? Again, the answer is absolutely no! Leave them alone – you'll only make the problems worse and create a Streisand Effect if you try to hush them up.

”

— Kyle Lacy (2009). Twitter Marketing For Dummies. For Dummies. p. 215. ISBN 0470561726.

-- Wesha (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is now a mainstream media term [1] but there are too many examples, which is why the article needs a cleanup. AFD here is a sledgehammer to crack a nut.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:26, 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]

Keep. A new term it may be, but to say it isn't used is incorrect. A quick search will bring up plenty of sources describing the phenomenon, including this, this, this, this, and this. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. It is used in the mainstream media. However, I do think that the examples provided can largely be eliminated, in favor of a better organized article about the topic. It is unnecessary to list every single example of this. WTF? (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/SNOW. Yes, examples are poor and article could be improved. There are PR books that warn against suppressing information because there might be a SE blowback. Previous AfD attacks have been one-sided, and the term has only become more common. Glrx (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
speedy Keep/SNOW This term is widely used by many very credible sources including very well respected publishers. Is SAGE Publications not credible enough? Just read the comments on the previous AFD. We have better things to do than waste our time on this. --T1980 (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Simply reading the previous AfD discussions would have answered all objections. User:Vanisaac @ 174.125.121.220 (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Tons of sources from a simple google news search. This afd is a waste of time. FurrySings (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A site I regularly read, The Register, references this term as short-hand for the phenomenon at least every other month. This is the term by which the problem is known. Hey, synchronicity - on the main page they mention Herostratus. Bad nom. Shenme (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I highly disagree with the nominator's assertion as to why this article should be deleted; the sources look fine to me. --haha169 (talk) 07:57, 21 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. --Cyclopia ^talk 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.