Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjaya 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 Delete, neologism created by article author the day before he posted the article. NawlinWiki 20:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Sanjaya effect

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable neologism. --Daniel J. Leivick 18:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Guys, have a heart. This concept is relevant and is going somewhere I assure you. It has been under discussion, by members of the political/technical community for sometime but lacked a name. Try and see past black and white orthodoxy and consider the relevancy and necessity of the principle itself. Thank you very much for your consideration hamilsizzle
 * Strong delete per WP:NFT. The term cannot be notable because it was just invented yesterday. Shalom Hello 19:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - not sufficiently notable. -- Hux 20:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Be serious hamil. This is a name that was created YESTERDAY and I suspect it is simply a way for the guy credited with coming up with the name to get his name on the net.  If you believe that the concept is important, then the idea can be discussed on Sanjaya's page, if he has one (I have no desire to read about him so I don't know if he has one or not) and/or the American Idol page.  Postcard Cathy 22:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OOPS Hamil, you are the guy mentioned in the article! And might I add that the community you talk about is also the name of a section of your website??  Perhaps the political technical community you talk about are your friends and not the community at large?  Postcard Cathy 22:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First off, thank you everyone for your input on this. This is my very first wikipedia entry, so it's a great learning experience about the community and the platform.

Postcard Cathy: the idea cannot be discussed on Sajaya's page because it is not about Sanjaya, we just use his name. The wisdom of crowds principle, which is what makes wikipedia work, and is the same principle behind what makes google work, says that large groups of people with a diverse body of opinions are predisposed to make the wisest decisions. Which is how a site like wikipedia can be opened to anyone to add content and committed wikipedians like you an others add their thoughts and opinions to help shape the final product.

But sometimes people game the system. With google, the practice is called a google bomb. There has been no definition for gaming another crowd-wise system like online voting.

I work for a member of congress and I and a group of people in the democratic political community are working on ways to use crowd wisdom technologies for things like developing public policy or voting on which questions to answer in an online town hall. This is where what I'm calling the sanjaya effect comes in. This would be like google bombing, but not on google...an attempt to artificially affect the outcome for humorous purposes through the crowd voting for the worst option as opposed to the best option.

So If I had my boss the congressman doing an online townhall, and the crowd voted to ask him a question on a salacious topic instead of a relevant one (much like a adolescent prank call), then that would be the sanjaya effect.

Sanjaya was an american idol contestant who was voted by the audience to stay on the show precisely because he was awful, and not good (and so many people found it funny that they continued to vote him on to stay).

I don't care about getting my name on the net and have removed the part of the definition that referred to me. I do believe that this is a relevant definition and an easy an important way for people in politics to describe a phenomenon they should be wary of when introducing web 2.0 technologies into politics.

Thank you for your time and for your consideration of this page.
 * Thanks for being civil, but you are missing the problem with the article. Myself and other have called the term non notable.  Notability in the Wikipedia sense, largely refers to WP:N which stems from WP:V.  In order for articles to be kept they must be sourced from reliable sources.  As the subject of your article is a neologism that you invented a couple of days ago it is unlikely that sources discussing it exist.  In general it is best to make sure that sources exist before creating an article. --Daniel J. Leivick 03:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, understood. I will return with more references. Thank you for your assistance and your advice. --Hamilsizzle 13:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll grant that the phenomenon exists (cf Hank the Angry Drunken Dwarf, for instance), but this is not what people call it. What do they call it? I dunno; find out. DS 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - since the article does not even claim that the term is notable. It is important not to confuse the term with the concept.  The article is about a neologism being applied to a phenomenon that may or may not have been discussed under other names (and thus may or may not itself be notable under a more common designation).  Online searches, which are not a hard and fast rule, do give some idea that the term, while it has been used at times in entertainment news, identifies the effect that one particular contestant had on one particular show, not a phenomenon that has any real relevance apart from American Idol.  In other words, a casual Google search (for example) might return a number of hits, but they aren't about the subject being addressed by this article.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  18:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Another name for this is market manipulation, but this is a very particular kind of manipulation (humor/nefarious) to a very particular kind of market (information). You guys are missing the forest for the trees here. I understand the need for references and will return.--Hamilsizzle 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, "market manipulation" might warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, and the various types can probably work as sub-headings to describe particular factors and effects. Perhaps, since you have an interest there, you can spearhead this entry; it doesn't currently exist under that name.  The "Sanjaya effect," on the other hand, does not seem to be a notable term for any phenomenon related to this kind of manipulation, and I will probably be surprised if you can find references (independent of yourself or internet blogs) that use it in the manner described by the current entry.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  17:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * delete. I don't disagree with the concept, but I do dispute the notability. It just sounds like the kind of thing that gets made up over a few beers. Kripto 11:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 'merge to Sanjaya Malakar if refs provided show some notability, delete otherwise.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:30, 7 July 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.