Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wyatt Earp 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Earp effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nonnotable neologism. I believe this "effect" is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Considering some of the comments on the talk page, it may also be merely an OR essay that violates WP:COI. Evb-wiki (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable neologism. Top Google hit is...guess what?...Wikipedia article. Only one other relevant hit. LovesMacs (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked more on Google and found more hits but I still think this is not yet notable enough. LovesMacs (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. However, I would note that lots of legitimate encyclopedic topics have their Wikipedia article as their first Google hit. The problem is that this topic has hardly any Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sounds like something someone made up for a psych 202 paper. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Contributor deletes it himself: He tried to do his best, although he agrees that "Notability in the wiki/eng" sense is not met. However, this is not his reason for withdrawal, because this notability notion will most probably have to be revised by wiki/eng herself before a larger language takes over. And we know, such a language does exist. No, the true reason for withdrawal is that the "Wyatt Earp Effekt" seems perfectly understood or can be learned in the next psych 303-course. Don't be sad, Wyatt Earp, if "your" effect will bear one day another name. Somebody will always remember, that you were, as far as I know, the first who lent his name, and your name was an excellent choice.81.244.234.197 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable enough, and the only reference isn't even in the language of this wiki. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 19:41, 9 June 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.