Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floodgate 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 redirect‎ to Floodgates principle. I see a consensus against retaining this article for the time being. If anyone wants to merge or work on content in draftspace on their own accord, they are free to do so with proper attribution. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Floodgate 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)

Possibly specific to Singaporean English as creator might be from Singapore? As a Brit I have never heard this phrase although Brits might say “open the floodgate”. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Singapore. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: By itself, not knowing of a phrase is not a reason for deletion. I'd think the real problem here is that this has been tagged as completely unsourced since December 2009. I don't have any opinion beyond that, though. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:14, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the words appear in some book results, there is seemingly no coverage of this as a distinct term, it's not on Wiktionary, and almost every other result I found was about yugioh or some video game. Unsourced since creation in 2005. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 19:46, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Some uses on GS suggest possible notability, but what we have here is an unsourced stub that merits WP:TNT (a rewrite could be done now, ping me if this is rescued and I'll revise my vote if necessary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle or merge into an idiom list (but even that I cant find much sourcing). I want to say keep, but searching a very refined way yields very little. The few things Ive found all refer to essentially that legal principle. Nothing really links to this article, but I am a little hesitant to go for delete. Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I would say the term has a place in the Wiki as per nom, maybe draftify meantime as ATD, the term seems to be a known across different disciplines such as in Law and in economics, but citations to support the term itself seems lacks SIGCOV, closest I would say is the Butterfly effect in terms of similar implications, however not identical, I also came across an existing Wiki article in Psychology but its not same in "implications" Flooding (psychology). Even an AI search like this shows mixed results to the point of hallucination? Perhaps a disambiguation page for Floodgate? or have an Wiktionary entry be made for this?Lorraine Crane (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Floodgates principle: per Metallurgist. No standalone notability, and the concept is largely covered at the target. Owen× ☎ 21:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.