Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gell-Mann amnesia effect

Gell-Mann amnesia effect

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is almost entirely quotes from copyrighted sources. Seems to be a non-notable Neologism. Google hits are almost entirely uses of the term, rather than coverage, and those that cover it are not reliable sources. Despite what may be inferred from the title, it is not an academic term and is---from what I can tell---entirely absent from Google Scholar. Wug·a·po·des 07:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If copyvio is the issue, delete the copyvio material ASAP, or speedy delete the article. FOARP (talk) 07:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: I don't think it's a copyvio; it's properly attributed. It's that the proportion of quotes is so high it may not constitute fair use under WP:NFCC Wug·a·po·des 07:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search found just 69 hits, basically all unusable, and at best quoting Crichton; the one on The Economist website is in a reader comment. Nom seems to be correct, this is a neologism that really hasn't caught on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, your search is going to exclude many more sources than you presumably intend. In using e.g. "-blog", you're going to remove from the results ANY web page that contains the term "blog"; you aren't necessarily excluding blogs themselves, as I assume you're expecting. The same goes for the other operators ("-reddit", "-twitter", etc.). Secondly, I think it's unfair to perform a search, as you did, explicitly excluding Crichton's quote — as the term is relatively obscure, it's to be expected that sources employing the term would explain and expand upon it via quotation, no? GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT. Specifically, this is basically a Michael Crichton quote and Wikipedia is not Wikiquote. There is no indication that this is notable independent of Crichton in my WP:BEFORE, and merging it to Michael Crichton would be undue. FOARP (talk) 09:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches, where it would fit quite nicely. Note that the page currently gets over 400 views per day and so, per WP:PRESERVE, it would be unhelpful to delete the page, leaving this AfD as our only readable account of the matter. Andrew D. (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think about that target, but a one- or two-sentence summary there would be a good idea. FOARP, I agree that merging the whole page would be undue, but what are your thoughts on a couple-sentence mention as part of Michael Crichton#Other speeches? Wug·a·po·des 16:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Project:editing policy is not based upon page view counts, which is not a reliable metric in any case, nor is Project:deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nomination asserts that this is a "non-notable Neologism" and others assert that this is a "failed neologism". The point about the readership traffic is that it demonstrates that there's actually quite a high level of interest. To put this in context, note that the page in question gets more traffic than Murray Gell-Mann – the related Nobel prize winner who died earlier this year. Turning the link red is just going to frustrate the many people looking for information and Google will send them elsewhere if we don't accommodate this. We can help send them to the right place by redirecting this traffic to the relevant section of Crichton's article as they might otherwise end up at Gell-Mann's. And if you want to be a stickler for policy, note that Notability is not a policy whereas WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR are. My !vote stands and is policy-based. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A neologism that hasn't caught on or been studied by linguists or lexicographers. It's basically a quip, and as such, merging it into Michael Crichton seems to me like undue weight. It's not a coinage that Crichton is known for, the way that, for example, Isaac Asimov is credited for robotics. I guess I wouldn't strongly object to a sentence or two at some place like Michael Crichton#Other speeches, but even that feels like adding trivia/cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failed neologism, then forget about it. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a minor neologism that did not achieve widespread use or discussion in reliable sources. As mentioned by several other users above, merging it to Michael Crichton gives undue weight to a very minor talk of his. Rorshacma (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence of significant coverage of this ordinary quote. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While having little note in the academic sphere, is a sufficiently popular neologism, as demonstrated by a simple search of the term. It would be a disservice to the utility of Wikipedia to remove it. If some note must be made that it is not an academically studied effect, as I agree the name would suggest, so be it. If it is ruled that the page really should be deleted, a merger onto Crighton's page ought to be the bare minimum. CooperFlourens (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Popularity of a phrase is the concern of a lexicographer. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The concern here at Wikipedia is the concept/event/person/place/thing denoted by the name, and whether it has escaped its inventor to actually become a properly documented part of the corpus of human knowledge, per our Project:No original research policy. That involves independent sources showing that people other than the creator have documented the concept. Where and what are yours? Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here's a selection of sources: a book; a newsletter; an obituary; a magazine article. Andrew D. (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I believe there's sufficient coverage of this term. It appears in books (one, two, three) and in the news (National Review, The Herald (his obit; granted), Continental Telegraph, The Federalist), as well as myriad other websites (does The Unz Review count as "news"?) and in the Journal of Dispute Resolution. Sure, it's an uncommon neologism, but it's by no means obscure and has had ample coverage in my opinion. GhostOfNoMeme (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue, though, is that in most of those sources, the coverage is extremely passing. Quite often little more than a single sentence defining it, or just a copy-paste of an excerpt of Chrichton's original talk. And the issue, as stated in the nom as in several of the comments, isn't that the term doesn't come up as being used, its that there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources that actually talk about the concept in any more depth than paraphrasing or quoting Chrichton's definition.Rorshacma (talk) 15:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael_Crichton#Other_speeches, there is too much coverage to make delete a comfortable choice, too little to pass WP:NEO, so MERGing is a sensible move.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]