Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (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 keep pursuant to WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Baader-Meinhof phenomenon
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article reappeared barely improved from the deleted version. The new source is a tiny online article without a named author that sums up the same information that is found in every other casual mention of the term online. I don't know if it counts as OR but it sure comes close to fitting "Wikipedia is not for things made up one day." Tegrenath (talk) 07:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * keep the topic is notable with plenty of academic references available. the real issue is whether this should be called frequency illusion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Certainly it's easier to find sources when one uses the name that Arnold Zwicky used for it. &#9786;  The informal name used heretofore is what caused all of the misapprehensions in the 2nd AFD discussion.  Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be clear, I am only opposed to the use of the "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" as the primary label for this subject, not the notability of the cognitive phenomenon itself. I myself have not found plenty of academic sources that use the term, so I would encourage anyone who does to add them to the current article or post them here or on the talk page for review.  Tegrenath (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep- A source search reveals that this 'term' was not invented in one day, but has been broadly in use for several years.Scott P. (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - user scottyp is right. this is well within Wikipedia criterias.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure if it is an example of frequency illusion, recency illusion, clustering illusion, or pareidolia. It may be a combination of some of those, or one of the other cognitive biases. If I had to choose, I'd say it's an example of clustering, but I'm not a researcher in those things. As originally used in the newspaper, it's references "close to each other", eg. this Monday, that Tuesday, and now Wednesday; or in the paper this morning, on the TV this afternoon, a friend asks at supper; not necessarily in time or in space but in different contexts close enough for the mind to "link". htom (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment After examining the subsequent comments of the nominator, I think AfD is the wrong process to be using, since the primary controversy involves the desired name of the article. Since this already pretty much qualifies as a snow keep, I am going to close this AfD early and set up an RfC at the article's talk page regarding moving of the article to the title Frequency illusion. Safiel (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2013 (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.