Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goebbels 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   redirect to Big lie. Seems the agreed solution  DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Goebbels effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this article is a botched attempt to create an article about a quote that was misattributed to Goebbels. See the wikiquote here ([]). The article is so poorly written as to be nearly incomprehensible and the sourcing is inadequate. Gaff (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This was a PROD that was challenged. The original rationale for the PROD read "This term appears to be made up. While Joseph Goebbels is often attributed with the quote "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." (see wq:Joseph Goebbels). However, a) there is no verification Goebbels ever said this, and b) there is no indication anyone has ever used the term "Goebbels effect" to describe this as a communications technique." --Gaff (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * See also Big lie. --Gaff (talk) 23:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The sole source that this concept exists seems to be from here "Repetition effect is derived from the Goebbels effect.". However, that one line does not establish WP:V.--Gaff (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * also: Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we don't need a dictionary definition of Goebbels effect.  --Gaff (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The term Goebbels effect is actually somewhat widely used (just do a Google search), but it appears to be used to mean different things to different people. In some, it refers to the "Big lie" concept, in others it refers to the "The leader is the state" concept that was central to much of Goebbels' propaganda, and in yet others it has other meanings. Since no clear meaning can be selected, and since none of the usages are cited to any reliable sources (the present article is cited to a Chinese journal article in which the author appears to be coining his own version of Goebbels effect), I don't really think we have the valid basis of an article. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 23:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Big lie, of which this is a fork, as well as being a plain violation of Godwin's law. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Zing! :) --Gaff (talk) 02:10, 24 March 2015 (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.