Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackson 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism that does not appear in any of the cited web pages. The source offered on the talk page is a blog post that does not use the phrase in a nomenclatural sense. The events themselves are already discussed at Death of Michael Jackson, and this is not the first time the net has gone down due to breaking news.

• Keep because the term is widely being used around the World Wide Web. It is a unique phenomenon that we can now refer to it by using this specific term called the Jackson effect. E.G [1] BSRDefiance (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, neologism. WillOakland (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The real name of the phenomenon is flash crowd. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is simply a non-notable neologism. Brian Reading (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I like turtles. Also this is just something someone made up and not a real term that anyone uses. Put up some real evidence of newspapers and important people using the term or delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.241.164.20 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:N and WP:NOR Rmosler | ● 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No idea about this one! Portillo (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note Page has moved from Jackson Effect to Jackson effect. Greg Tyler 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously none of you have looked up the term, it is being used in mainstream articles, credible articles, to refer to this event. It's being used by the public and should be found in Wikipedia. Cliffsteinman (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I googled it. I don't see what you're seeing. Care to provide some actual references? Brian Reading (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw articles with "Jackson effect" but not articles using it in a way that this article described. Bowler225 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps that "public" that you speak of should be using Wikipedia to learn about ideas that already exist. Wikipedia already has an article documenting flash crowds, a notion that is in no way specific to Michael Jackson. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This was a term used for people who don't know the already existing terms for network congestion that causes downtime. When Obama had his inauguration and the internet experienced the same drama, what were people calling it then? Certainly not the Jackson effect. I also cannot find any articles directly describing the effect caused on internet networks, only things such as major unexpected sales rises, and impacts on cultures expressing their emotions.
  • That's just a false statement. It seems I'm out-voted. But Wikipedia's built off democracy, delete it. Cliffsteinman (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has happened before Jacksons death and it was called something else then. And next time it happens, they'll call it something else. That puts this squarely into WP:NEO territory. Just because a few talking heads in the media lack the iniative to find out the real name or the imagination to come up with a better term doesn't make this one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Secondly, the user who initially created the article no longer exists on Wikipedia. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just out of curiosity, what do you mean he "no longer exists on Wikipedia"? I see he hasn't edited since last Tuesday; but he came back after a year-long break to make the article, so I'm not sure that a five-day absence means he's gone for good... Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hardly worthy of its own article. 91.104.78.84 (talk)
• Delete This is something that should be limited (if at all) to the Michael Jackson page itself under his death. This phrase sounds like it belongs in a slang dictionary instead, and it is defined poorly. Bowler225 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice - it needs a name ("slashdot effect" is not mainstream as yet) but there's little to no evidence this is the name - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a name. It has had a name for about three decades, now. It's a flash crowd. Ironically, Wikipedia actually documents this long-standing idea, under its actual name. Would that people, including people in AFD discussions, learned from what Wikipedia already has! It's not as though I haven't linked to flash crowd three times, now, once in the Death of Michael Jackson article, once in the Wikinews coverage, and once at the start of this very discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a minor variation on the "slashdot effect" in that the trigger is off-net or widespread so it hits more generic services rather than specific hosts. IMO this does not require it's own page, though a note (and possibly a redirect to) the slashdot effect page may be in order 86.0.255.95 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Much of the OR problem could be solved via the removal of the irrelevant Middle East blog (apparently the only cited source to use the words, "the Michael Jackson effect" in sequence--albeit in no apparent connection to the Internet-congestion theme), and much of the neologism issue could be fixed with a simple page move to something more prosaic, like Media and Internet coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. But Death_of_Michael_Jackson#Media_and_Internet_coverage already exists, already covers everything (save the blog) that Jackson Effect covers (otherwise I'd have opted for a merge/redirect), and is succinct enough that it does not seem to warrant a spin-off article at this time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article originally even linked to flash crowd. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If the death of another major celebrity causes Internet congestion, and that congestion is widely referred to as the "Jackson effect," then you could add a note about it in Death of Michael Jackson and Slashdot effect. But it's not worth its own article. Trivialist (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Recent death-itis. I'm not sure that even the Death of Michael Jackson article needs to exist. It's just overkill at some point. And yes, very iffy sourcing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to the slashdot effect. See WP:NEO. Also, as others have explained, the death of Michael Jackson is being covered quite efficiently in other articles. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (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.