Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bambi effect


 * 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 no consensus. Two things are certain - this article is primarily OR, yet there are well-put arguments in its defense. Given the current discussion I cannot delete this article at this time, but if no one can (or will) demonstrate that a sourceable article exists behind this OR, a subsequent AFD might not bode well for the article. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bambi effect

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete OR item about unsourced "Bambi effect". Most web pages I find that uses the phrase is talking about other things (including something sexual). This is insufficiently notable. And regardless of all that, we still have WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla 00:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * week delete Seems like a newish term and if there were sources it might be a good article. Right now doesnt meet criteria ForeverDEAD 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non notable neologism without any reliable sources to verify otherwise. NeoFreak 01:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per NeoFreak. Majoreditor 02:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete poor writing style, non notable per NeoFreak --Astroview120mm 02:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per NeoFreak (right on the nose.) - Rjd0060 05:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While I certainly see the point that the article at the moment seems like original research, not referencing much, and being too short, it's still a real phenomena that is easily observable so it should be described somewhere as it is notable. If someone can point me to another article on Wikipedia where it's already described, I'll change my vote to Delete. Debolaz 06:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (on the fence) There's about 1,500 ghits (- the "Spacecraft" and "Susan Nash" album references) that seem to cover a wide variety of the uses of the phrase in different forums. While probably a neologism, appears to have been out there for a while & is used by different groups. SkierRMH 06:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- possible merge to a hunting article if appropiate, otherwise looks like WP:OR Thunderwing 13:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Per  and  the term does seem to be notable, as it used by a variety of reliable sources. However, the articles mention it is used in a wildlife management context, so I'm guessing that either most references are locked away in journals or are not featured prominently on the Internet. There is probably a scientific name for it as well. I'd suggest keeping it and either expanding (WikiProject Environment could help here) or redirecting it to the proper scientific term (if one exists). 124.148.48.20 15:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the references found by 124-148.48.20, and see also this reference [] (its a google cache of a lost page, but of a valid peer-reviewed Journal article) that shows the concept has been a real part of scholarly discourse since at LEAST 1996. 11+years seems a long time for a neologism, and there appears to be lots of real, scholarly discussion in reliable souces dealing with this concept.  Easily passes WP:N guidelines, and this concept appears to be discussed enough by said reliable sources that it is also clearly NOT original research.--Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That last article does not mention a Bambi effect in so many words. It merely says that Bambi had an effect, which I think is different. If I researched, I may well find articles saying that the book and film of Tarka the Otter had a similar effect in respect of hunting in the UK, but no one talks about a "Tarka-effect" as far as I know. My point is that a source that does not refer to this "effect" as the Bambi effect may not serve as suitable evidence of notability. MikeHobday 21:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In isolation, no it wouldn't, but it does act as a support source for the prior 3 references. --Jayron32| talk | contribs  02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep &mdash; I'm not sure how many more examples we need. The term is referenced in lots of blogs but I won't refer to them even though they demonstrate that the term has entered the popular vernacular. It's in The Urban Dictionary, it's described on EconomyPoint.org, The "Oneness Commitment", a sort of New Age community, has an encyclopedia entry on it, where it's referenced in six articles, Mother Linda's News refers to it and check out page 17 of these lecture notes from a zoology course at the University of Wisconsin. There are scads and scads of examples of where the term is used, in the fashion of this article, in the popular culture out there. A search on Google for "Bambi Effect" returns 1600 hits and, from a subsample I took, about 25% of them are direct hits on the term as used in the article and about an equal number are oblique references to it. I'm assuming good faith and, as a result, I realise that those recommending deletion are not doing so for POV reasons. Therefore, I challenge each of you to do the google search for yourself to see if this is, indeed, a neologism that has no cultural currency and that it does not describe something that is relevant to this encyclopedia. I, for one, was neutral until I proved to myself that this article should be kept. &mdash; Dave (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a minor comment, you can't use the Urban Dictionary as a source anymore than you can a Wiki since it is also user created. I could make up something and add it to the UD tonight if I wanted to. TJ Spyke 03:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The additional reference shown above are sufficient. DGG (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John254 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NEO in the absence of sources that are substantially about the term rather than simply using the term. Otto4711 04:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although the article in its current state smacks of original research, I think the fact that a number of sources have been found so far indicates that this is a real phenomenon. I would, however, suggest paring it down to the bare minimum, tagging it as a stub (if it's not already), and trying to find some stronger sources. --jonny-mt(t)(c) 04:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep with sources added, the article describes a concept that is supported using reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. See this Google news Archive search for additional sources. Some of our early voters may want to revisit the article in light of the sources added. Alansohn 05:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Someone invented a catch-phrase and its notable. Ugh.  What if you haven't watched Bambi and still get the effect?  Wouldn't it be a psychological symptom in people that has another description elsewhere?  Could it Merge with something that already exists?  I was nearly on neutral on this one, maybe more sources would compel me to be claiming Bambi Effect on those roo shooters one day. T--T3Smile 12:29, 25 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.