Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pao effect

Putting energy into a talk page that may be on its way to never-never land
user:bfpage wrote on 18 September 2015: :
 * An XfD banner on top of a wiki-page usually kills all participation. I myself am hesitant about putting any energy into a talk page that is on its way to never-never land. Opinions? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are right again. But it is a guideline on the 'official' AfD guidelines page and needs to be brought up as often as possible. It is just not very nice to be so cavalier about nominating an article for deletion. It would be better to bring up concerns on a talk page - just like the other editor did about your list of condominiums. That was the right way to do it. I like what you do, I like how you edit and I am sorry that I don't back to your talk page as often as I should. I like seeing articles NOT deleted. The Very Best of Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 11:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

merge with redirect?
With so many editors voting for merge / redirect I do not understand how a merge will better Wikipedia.

The Pao effect is a new word which has been recently coined which is used quite often in legal circles in the United States. The article about Ellen Pao is an article about the former CEO of Reddit. The article about Pao v. Kleiner Perkins was recently split from Ellen Pao as an article about her gender discrimination law suit.

All three articles belong to different categories:


 * '''Ellen Pao’’’’ : Category: American law firm executives,  Category:   American people of Chinese descent,  Category:   Businesspeople from New Jersey, plus many more


 * Pao v. Kleiner Perkins : Category:Gender discrimination lawsuits,  Category: United States employment discrimination case law, Category:2015 in United States case law, Category:California state case law


 * Pao effect: Category: Vocabulary and usage stubs,  Category:   Words coined in the 2010s.

If Pao Effect is merged with one of the other two its categories will disappear which means that, for example,  editors interested in the development of language will not see it any more.

So why are so many here voting for this option? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, sure, but there are all sorts of subtopics we could split out from these (and most) articles which would themselves go into a variety of other categories. The arguments for merging are on the other page, but why is losing categories a reason for keeping? Also, you may know the categorization guidelines better than I do, but if it's a bolded incoming redirect post-merge, could you add (with or without the piped name) regardless? &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 13:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot answer for anyone save myself. Wiki GNG state that notability must not be fleeting and that wiki is a lagging indicator. What you have here is a "new" term. It is unproven, there is no way of knowing if the immediate aftermath of the case brought analysts to it that coined a phrase which will be lasting or if it will disappear from the vernacular. The article appears to be simultaneous to the creation of the term thus it is as of yet difficult to judge the flurry of articles about it. SusunW (talk) 13:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding user: SusunW. I think I see what you are saying: you believe that there is not enough history to establish the Pao effect as a term that is here to stay. However, I am not sure that it should be  a requirement for inclusion. There are many biographies in Category:Dead people - are we saying then that dead people can be notable but not dead terms?


 * The question in my mind is: Is the term notable? Is it used by several reliable sources? -- and the answer is a resounding YES. Just my $.02 Ottawahitech (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dead terms are useful and should be included if they meet the other criteria. I lament often how many women are left out of Wikipedia due to inadequate availability of significant coverage because for centuries women were footnotes to history. Someone explained to me recently that Wikipedia notability can include people and things that have done absolutely nothing constructive or for the good of the world, they just have to be savvy enough to obtain media coverage about themselves or their works over a period of time. Wiki notability is not a judge of worthiness of inclusion in history and does not mean the subject is not notable outside of wikipedia. The question right now is, is the term a flash in the pan? Because unless you can prove that it is not, however notable you think the term is, it does not meet Wiki guidelines. SusunW (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What will it take to make this term "notable"?
I have found another mainstream reference from the other side of the ocean that uses the term Pao effect: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/the-front-door-of-the-internet-has-been-closed/story-fnpug1jf-1227393355187 This one is from JUNE 11, 2015 (later than the others included in the article itself).

I won’t even bother adding it to the article itself which seems to be doomed. Ottawahitech (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Off-topic Comment
It seems user:mrfrobinson has made it his mission as an editor to pursue my edits. When he is around he is always involved in pages that I start or contribute to, no matter what the topic, but his contributions are limited to reverts and deletion discussions. I cannot remember one instance where he added any content to the multitude of pages that I have been involved in.

To see some examples of Mrfrobinson's "contributions"
 * start here here and follow the links.

Ottawahitech (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)