Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Kardashian 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 Kim Kardashian, to leave history intact due to the interest in merging. Clear consensus is that this term does not warrant a standalone article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject refers to a highly specific trend effect which is not notable and is likely original research; most references are not reliable and a quick web search provides mostly tabloid magazine or clickbait references to the subject. Ljgua124 (talk) 07:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it has a couple mentions in notable periodicals e.g. Forbes but nothing that is per se notable as something encyclopedic. Possible redirect to Kim Kardashian?--Savonneux (talk) 04:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - most of it seems to be WP:OR/WP:SYN. The term would probably warrant a few sentences in the Kim Kardashian article, but hardly an article by itself. Being a neologism, I don't think several sources from fashion magazines/columns are enough to meet WP:GNG. Daß Wölf (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's a multitude of sources that should provide more than enough proof of the subject's notability. It doesn't necessarily have to stay at this title. Everyking (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Notability isn't temporary. This is a term which will be forgotten in short order. Mentions in sources do not meet notability requirements.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:22, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Kim Kardashian, already reads much like a section from that article.  Sandstein   15:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Meets WP:GNG. The term has existed for more than seven years, is still used today, and will likely be used in the future. There's a decent source used in the article . And more that are not used , , , , , . (Bonus points for sources from many counties: United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Lebanon, Australia) And some guy wrote a book about it . Rainbow unicorn (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Entertainment columns about celebs are WP:RS now? The book publisher, look at other books they've published, ebooks only and they only have a facebook page.--Savonneux (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Not notable and term used everywhere for click bait are mutually exclusive. The problem is finding the term explained from the 10,000 articles using the term.
 * I think it's more to do with lack of reliable sources. Eg. a quick google scholar search yields 0 results for "kim kardashian effect"Ljgua124 (talk) 08:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: unreliable barometer of notability; anything that fosters the notion that the Kardashians are of lasting notability should be staked through the heart. Quis separabit?  23:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we here to decide what is notable or what should be notable? Everyking (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Kim Kardashian is without a doubt an incredibly influential person on culture today, and numerous outlets have written about the effect she has on society. However, this does not mean that this effect itself can be synthesized into one overall phenomenon that can be considered independently notable of her as a topic.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not well referenced enough or very encyclopedic Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge with Kim Kardashian per WP:WPINAD. Might be notable for Wiktionary, but some of the material might be nice for the corresponding section on her main page. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 22:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - What said - reads like a section of the Kim Kardashian article. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 03:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge - Appears to have been a part of Kim K article which metastasized. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or selective Merge - [Person's name] + "effect" just means "influence". Celebrities influence things. Style, fashion, culture, business, art, etc. This article is just about the influence of Kim Kardashian on a variety of different things. If you look for sources about that influence, you'll find plenty of them that don't use the term "Kim Kardashian effect" despite talking about the same thing. "Kim Kardashian effect" is no more a thing than: Paris Hilton effect (on psychology), Paris Hilton effect (on baby names), Justin Bieber effect (on tech consumerism), Justin Bieber effect (on economic perspective), Justin Bieber effect (about social media influence), Jon Stewart effect, Apple effect, a different Apple effect, Tom Cruise effect, Jay-Z effect (about his success in general), Jay-Z effect (about influence), Taylor Swift effect (again, just her influence), Taylor Swift effect (on business practices), Skrillex effect (on hair), Michael Jackson effect, Jay Leno effect, Oprah effect. Hm. I seem to have gone overboard. But this is a game you can play at home. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:14, 31 August 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.