Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fishtown 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   merge to Bradley effect.  So Why  13:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Fishtown Effect

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism. It does not seem even to be an "effect" to me. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep its a frequently used neologism and it has been the center idea of some articles in reliable sources (e.g "The Fishtown Effect &mdash; Can you be racist and vote Obama?".) Icewedge (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to have been the central idea in one article. —Dominus 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete do not yet know if this effect will come to prominence, or fade to obscurity. I say delete it now, and if it is still notable in a year or more then somebody will recreate it. Then again, if it is kept and fades to obscurity, someone can renominate for deletion at a later time.Mozzie (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now . I'd heard of this so-called effect before in the past few weeks, and I hadn't read any of the cited sources at that time. Although this is but an anecdote, I feel that the term has been mentioned sufficiently in the media to warrant inclusion. Should the term turn out to be but a fad among political columnists, however, then I'd advocate its deletion at some point in the future. More importantly, however, I'm aware of no other term to describe this hypothesized electoral effect. Did such a term exist, I'd vote for this article's being merged with the article covering that term. Qqqqqq (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bradley Effect, on second thought. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The article seems to be saying that some white people who don't like black people in general voted for Obama since they thought he would do a better job as president than McCain, especially for the economy. I'm happy to hear that they did, but I don't see how this is remarkable enough to have its own name as an "effect" or a WP article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable neologism made up by political talking heads because their polls were wrong. There is no way of knowing whether this term will catch on yet or not. If this term is ever used again after this election cycle, then it can be recreated. -Atmoz (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Bradley effect. The claim that this neologism is "frequently used" or "has been mentioned sufficiently in the media" are unsubstantiated, and probably false.  Google News search, for example, produces only five citations.  Three are from the inventor of the neologism.  Of the other two, the last one was on November 3, before the election.  If the "effect" is so widely-discussed in the media, where are the articles analyzing its effect on the election?  I suggest that this nonceword has had its fifteen seconds of fame.  The article on the Bradley effect already says everything that this article does, more succinctly.  I tried replacing Fishtown effect with a redirect  to Bradley effect earlier this month, but the article's creator reverted the change. —Dominus 19:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep its a frequently used neologism. Philly jawn (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to Bradley effect per Dominus. The term appears to be a non-notable neologism, it was never widely discussed by the media during the election, and I don't see any proof that it is notable enough to warrant an article of its own. Also Atmoz brought up some good points. Khoikhoi 02:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the "Fishtown effect" was mentioned in Bradley effect more people would read about it there than will ever find this article. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is already mentioned there. —Dominus 18:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * keep & review in 6 months. As The Fishtown Effect - Can you be racist and vote Obama? ( Philadelphia City Paper) says, it's the opposite of the Bradley effect - "Fishtown" respondents admitted racist sentiments but considered voting for Obama for other reasons. However it's too early to be sure how long this term will endure in political analysis. One difficulty of political coverage is that terms may be important for a few decades and then decline, for example Orpington Man" and "Mondeo Man" in the UK. OTOH "Black power" has produced spin-offs like "Gay power", "Grey power" and "Girl power" (spelt "Girrrl power" or even "Girrrl powerrr" by enthusiasts). --Philcha (talk) 13:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be the opposite, but is it notable? Zero hits in Google Books, and only four hits in Google News. Per WP:CRYSTAL, if it later becomes notable, we can restore the article, but you say that it's too early to be sure how long this term will endure in political analysis. This could possibly also violate Avoid neologisms as well. Khoikhoi 06:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Khoi, as you kindly point out, Google News shows that the Fishtown effect is notable enough to have been written about ("significant, direct coverage)" in the Irish Independent, i.e. on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. If WP can't have an article on the Fishtown effect until it shows up in Google books, perhaps we should delete United States presidential election, 2008 until it's been written about in a book by a WP:RS political analyst, rather than a catch-penny hack the day after the election. Hmm, I wonder what other articles we'd have to delete if we used your Google Books criterion. Perhaps most of the scientific and medical discoveries, tunes, movies, novels, etc., etc. of the last two years. --Philcha (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Doesn't seem to be a real effect. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2008 (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.