Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinkerbell 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   keep.  → Call me  Hahc  21  19:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Tinkerbell effect

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

None of the examples besides "the rule of law" have any form of proper source, and even that one only counts if you accept the premise of the paper. The "tinkerbell effect", as far as I can tell, is a trope. It's a relatively nebulous concept with a cute name tacked onto it that appears in various places in real life and in fiction. None of the actual sources refer to it as an actual phenomenon, but rather as a metaphor to make a separate point. There's just.. nothing here. (shamelessly copied from the talk page) Spaig (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Spaig (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. More sources, found in commercial databases and accessible through WP:REX.
 * Adriel Bettelheim, "Tinkerbell Effect, Part 3: Obama's Job Creation Efforts". CQ Politics (Congressional Quarterly), May 27, 2009
 * David Astle. "Wordplay". The Sydney Morning Herald. 04/13/2013. Quote: "Or the Tinkerbell effect, whereby an entity (or pixie) is true if you thoroughly believe it exists, not unlike most religions." (Database: EBSCO)
 * Tom Licata. "We still can't tax ourselves out of the hole". The Newport Daily Express. September 30, 2009. Quote: "The Tinkerbell effect describes those things that exist only because people believe in them. More on this later…" (Database: NewsBank)
 * Greg Pierce. "Nation Inside Politics". The Washington Times. June 8, 2009. Quote: ""To think that wind and solar or other alternative fuels can fill the energy gap requires a belief in what Adriel Bettelheim of Congressional Quarterly has called the ' Tinkerbell effect ,' as in Peter Pan." (Database: NewsBank)
 * "Political Headlines". FOX News Special Report with Bret Baier. September 8, 2009. Quote: "There is a guy who writes for Congressional Quarterly, and I wish I could think of his name, who has identified something in the Obama administration called the " Tinkerbell effect." You remember Tinkerbell from "Peter Pan?" I'm not kidding about this, the "Tinkerbell effect." And that is when you think things will happen, good things will happen just because you wish they would happen." Quote by Fred Barnes, Executive Editor of The Weekly Standard. (Database: NewsBank)
 * I think the article in Congressional Quarterly and a couple other reliable sources plus echoed in the popular press in a number of places makes it something people will search on and should have coverage on Wikipedia. The "reverse tinkerbell" makes it into a longer article so hard to say where it could be merged, it's more than a 1-paragraph concept to drop into another article (I think). Anyway believe it would probably do more harm to delete than keep, and it has coverage. -- Green  C  20:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Move Fair enough - but most of the content in the article is pretty bad, and excising most of it makes it really short. Maybe shift it from Sociology to Idiom? As a sociological concept, it's pretty hard to source, but it's good as an idiom. Spaig (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources found. this is a clean-up issue. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)]


 * Keep - In addition to the content provided above by User:Green Cardamom, there are also variants of this term. Source examples include:
 * .
 * Zie Frank H. Durgin (May-June 2002). The Tinkerbell Effect: Motion Perception and Illusion. Journal of Consciousness Studies 9. pp. 88-101.
 * Aleksander, Igor (2005). The World in My Mind, My Mind in the World. Imprint Academic. ISBN 1845400216
 * – NorthAmerica1000 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * – NorthAmerica1000 08:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This looks more like something for wikitionary than for an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree, but this is more of an idiom than a term to be defined. There's already many idioms on Wikipedia - "800 pound gorilla",    "Elephant in the room" and so forth. Hence, the above. Spaig (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Sources prove its a real thing, and gets significant coverage in reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  05:57, 13 March 2014 (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.