Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Robert Culp 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. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Robert Culp Effect

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

Non-noteworthy invented phrase. As of yesterday, there were three Google hits for "Robert Culp Effect": this entry, and two wikipedia sub-pages: a user page, and the list of current prods. (Today there are more, they seem to be the article authors who are upset about possible deletion.)

See the talk page (Talk:The Robert Culp Effect) where the original author says he made up the term. It's based on one (!) episode of Columbo.

Prod was contested; I don't know why, this looks like a pretty clear cut case of an invented expression that's used nowhere. Hairhorn (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NFT and WP:NEO. It seems pretty clear to me that the OE just doesn't "get it". Wperdue (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Delete Wikipedia is not for things someone makes up one day which lack significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This is a neologism which has apparently not gained any notice outside the mind of its creator. Edison (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete' - thought there was a Speedy for things like this. DreamGuy (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How does the OE not "get it". Just becuase there is no reference for it online means it does not exist, pray tell how you gave credence to things before google? A lot of people on here taking easy route of google hits, who here has worked on researching things pre google or worked on a printed encyclopedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.118.50 (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [Raises hand.] I've done both, and neither WP nor printed encyclopedias are in the business of helping people "build the use of this effect." Delete per WP:V and WP:MADEUP. Deor (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply My comments about not "getting it" refer to the conversation on the article's talk page. It is fairly simple. Wikipedia has standards for inclusion based upon the ability to reliably source the information so that it is verifiable and so that notability can be established. This entry has not met those standards. Therefore, it does not belong here. You are correct in that google is not the ultimate arbiter of what should be included. If you can provided printed references from books, magazines, or newspapers or media reports from television or radio regarding this neologism you are welcome to add them. I hope this was helpful in answering your question. Wperdue (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * Delete more trying to give neologisms legitimacy via Wikipedia. JuJube (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Deor has it right: there seems to be a confusion here between verifying that something is notable and helping make it notable. The Internet has loads of places that can help you with the latter. Hairhorn (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. It seems clear that the OE hasn't read WP:NFT which clearly explains the issue.  For those that haven't gotten to the discussion page yet, the OE explicitly admits to having made up the term recently: "I made up the term therfore [sic] it is real" says the OE.  Isn't there a speedy delete for this?  BobKawanaka (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

People check things as they are not notable to them hence coming on here for information, the fact its not notable but a fact should be a reason on its inclusion. A lot of people on here are confusing what wikipedia is and what people want from it, facts I would assume, this effect I see is a fact, notable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.118.50 (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To our OE IP that can't sign his edits: I think you'll find that it is you that has misunderstood what Wikipedia is for and what it is not. Saying "I made it up, and therefore it is true" doesn't make something worthy of an encyclopedia. I can only reiterate what other editors have said and suggest that you read WP:V, WP:N, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NEO and WP:NFT. I would also like to suggest, in the absence of further reliable sources, you abstain from further comment in this discussion; your point has been made perfectly clear multiple times, and you have not addressed any of the issues raised; if you do, fine edit the article to reflect that and people may reconsider. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Very sorry I never signed edits, I have read the articles and I do not deny that it falls into some of the catagories or "rules", no I havent misunderstood what I think wikipedia is or many think and I do not think I need to refrain or be told as such either. Many issues I have said have failed to be addressed, Fact: the effect happens, it has no name unless somebody can show me otherwise, notable or not its still a fact.--Pay (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so. Your issues - all of them - have been addressed very specifically. If you indeed read the relevant guidelines you simply did not understand them. Hairhorn (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment No issues have been addressed, you have pointed me to several guidelines for wikipedia that I may not agree with, that does not mean I do not understand. Can I ask what harm this article is doing, it is not contradicting any other mention if there is of this effect. If this is the only mention of such an effect which nobody can surely argue with happens then what is the problem, yes the name of the effect is being questioned, is the actual occurance being questioned? If the occurance is ok why not have a name for it?--Pay (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply WP:NOHARM. JuJube (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. I'm not sure which criteria for speedy this falls under, but it's a neologism and confessed as such by the author.  I think we can put it out of its misery (and maybe call it the "Made It Up One Day effect").Tyrenon (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Everything is made up one day is it not, again I kept getting showen a plethora of rules/critera that wikipedia entries must use to be accepted, these reliable sources certainly do not have the same strict criteria but if its in whats deemed reliable its ok? just becuase there is a reason in the rules of entry does not make it correct, again this is something that happens and as yet I have seen no other term for this. Its very easy to point out rules in wikipedia that you have. There is no justification I can see for some of the rules.--Pay (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This article seems to have a lot of reasons for delete according to many, may I point out the entry "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" Still in Wikipedia which is the exact same as what many on here are saying this is, its made up one day which seems not acceptable, yes this has far more notable occurances I agree but non the less it has many elements for deletion as this article according to some. So therefore stuff made up one day is in wikipedia and it appears to be a neologism also, so people asking to delete on thoose grounds wikipedia seems to contradict this, anyome suggesting delete as not notable certainly have a point. Some are getting carried away you could put some well knowen factual things through their paces with all the rules I have been showen. The article I refer to has been on here for some time.--Pay (talk) 07:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand that sometimes one can feel beaten up by wikipedia rules and terminology. Those rules govern what wikipedia is but let's dispense with them for the moment and try to be logical. You come up with something, you think it's noteworthy.  Your brother comes up with his own thing that he finds interesting, so too does your son, mother, niece, nephew, the guy down the street, the guy down the street's brother, mother, etc. and pretty soon you have 250+ million English speaking people with a computer that add, everyday, one or two things that they think are important.  Not only is that not what wikipedia is, that's not what anyone would want to ever bother reading.  You might say, yes, but my stuff is interesting and unique and theirs isn't.  That's your opinion.  And of course, that is likely to be their opinion too about their posts.  Who could possibly decide which of the billions of things posted are interesting enough.  That's why there are specific rules, cited here so many times, that dictate the "hurdle" for inclusion.  There are many reasons why your page deserves deletion not least of which is that it is not currently being used (despite your wanting it to be).  The example you cite of "Baader-Meinhof" is clearly a candidate for deletion, except, if you search on the newspaper cited, people are actually using the term in that area.  That page still may be a candidate for deletion, but it does have the advantage of verifiable use by more than a token number of people for more than a few months.  Another thing to think about, wikipedia is what it says it is.  That may seem "unfair" or "arbitrary" to you but it is so.  Anyone that wants to host a free-for-all encylopedia with no articles deleted ever, could do so, they need only CPUs and bandwidth. BobKawanaka (talk) 13:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * None of this needs to be complicated. It's not notable and it's not verifiable. Saying "I made it up" isn't verification by any good standard. And no one's even argued that's it's notable, the only argument has been that notability shouldn't matter; that's not going to cut it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to BobKawanaka I would say this has been best answer so for to my article, many posters have stated that you cannot have something made up on a day in here yet Baader Meinhoff is still on, so you can as long as its used, so why show me criteria stating that and yet an article exists that does not meet a lot of the links I am to go and read? I have never said its important all I have said I have a term for something that is a real phenomenom that is all, as I said I dont know if there is something else to describe it but this was a phrase to use to describe it.--Pay (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. It was made up by the article creator. I'm sure this is a lot of research on this topic, but we've got an article for it already, namely Attention. Fences and windows (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete As original prodder Computerjoe 's talk 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:SNOWBALL please? Computerjoe 's talk 20:36, 31 May 2009 (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.