I notice that the article on the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon has recently been deleted, and it has in fact been deleted many times over the years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon
However, according to stats.grok.se, this article is quite popular, having been viewed *around 350 thousand times since 2007*. Here's the script I wrote:
for i in $(wget --quiet -O- http://stats.grok.se/en/200712/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep '>2' | cut -f2 -d'>' | cut -f1 -d'<');do wget --quiet -O- http://stats.grok.se/en/$i/Baader-meinhof%20phenomenon | grep 'has been viewed' | sed 's/.*viewed//;s/ //g';done
201402: 67419 201401: 20892 201312: 19924 201311: 5886 201310: 757 201309: 1801 201308: 756 201307: 1019 201306: 1153 201305: 3548 201304: 1092 201303: 1565 201302: 746 201301: 2291 201212: 586 201211: 612 201210: 1062 201209: 586 201208: 360 201207: 326 201206: 238 201205: 277 201204: 286 201203: 298 201202: 392 201201: 743 201112: 392 201111: 566 201110: 571 201109: 460 201108: 778 201107: 1735 201106: 452 201105: 368 201104: 409 201103: 336 201102: 649 201101: 475 201012: 295 201011: 274 201010: 373 201009: 325 201008: 363 201007: 609 201006: 844 201005: 751 201004: 810 201003: 522 200712: 454 Total: 348201
Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia. Since the phenomenon didn't have a well known name, I've been telling people about it for quite some time now, and it has recently enjoyed a huge surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of its notability should be added.
Cheers,
Brian Mingus
On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
Wikipedia's policies are irrelevant: This phenomenon has entered the lexicon, and is now well known simply due to its existence in Wikipedia. Since the phenomenon didn't have a well known name, I've been telling people about it for quite some time now, and it has recently enjoyed a huge surge in popularity, *due to its existence on Wikipedia*.
At least we killed "analogue disc record" before it entered English.
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of its notability should be added.
This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case: really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote "delete without prejudice".
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of course.
- d.
On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of its notability should be added.
This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case: really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote "delete without prejudice".
linkto:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon in Google shows that it hits Reddit and apparently 4chan a bit. Apparently StumbleUpon likes it too. This would account for the hit rates - it's an amusing thing people would like there to be a name for, c.f. "The Meaning Of Liff" - but still doesn't supply us with sufficient material to base a solid article on.
- d.
The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and one would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession. Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name.
The article should clearly stay!
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 2:25 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
The article should reinstated, a section concerning the unique nature of its notability should be added.
This argument doesn't seem to convince (though that does resemble reasonable popularity). The fourth AFD notes the problem in this case: really crappy sources. The sort of thing that would lead me to !vote "delete without prejudice".
linkto:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baader-Meinhof_phenomenon in Google shows that it hits Reddit and apparently 4chan a bit. Apparently StumbleUpon likes it too. This would account for the hit rates - it's an amusing thing people would like there to be a name for, c.f. "The Meaning Of Liff" - but still doesn't supply us with sufficient material to base a solid article on.
- d.
On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and one would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession. Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name. The article should clearly stay!
Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...
- d.
And I thought it was just the Baader, Browder, Bauer phenomenon...
Fred Bauder
On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and one would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short succession. Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they are describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its longstanding and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised it to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name. The article should clearly stay!
Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Wouldn't that be running afoul of the "Citogenesis" problem that Randall Munroe so succinctly pointed out in his xkcd web comic:
Elias Max Friedman A.S., CCEMT-P אליהו מתתיהו בן צבי elipongo@gmail.com "יְהִי אוֹר"
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 1:19 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 March 2014 18:04, Brian J Mingus brian.mingus@colorado.edu wrote:
The reason the name stuck is that "Baader-Meinhof" is a weird name, and
one
would not expect to see it multiple times independently in short
succession.
Hence the name "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" (which is also the name of a book) is analogous to onomatopoeia in that both represent the thing they
are
describing in some way - this is also similar to homoiconicity. It's a perfect name - much better than "frequency illusion" - and a substantial number of people now know it by this name, in part due to its
longstanding
and interesting history of existence on Wikipedia, which has advertised
it
to hundreds of thousands of people and generated tens of thousands of websites which use it by that name. The article should clearly stay!
Now you just need sources to this effect. There's always writing them ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9 March 2014 10:46, Elias Friedman elipongo@gmail.com wrote:
Wouldn't that be running afoul of the "Citogenesis" problem that Randall Munroe so succinctly pointed out in his xkcd web comic:
No. If you are writing the sources for scratch rather than just copying Wikipedia that isn't an issue. The classic example being this source:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/04/the-remarkable-notability-of-old-...
In the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Murray
article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of course. - d.
*Most often requested* nonexistent articles per day (based on *149* days in year *2008*).
?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of course. - d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Like so much it needs updating. It is of historical interest, at the very least. For example I discovered the unusual "[[List of big-bust models and performers]]" which was deleted at the 6th AfD, partly on the basis that it was redundant to [[Category:Big-bust models and performers]]. This category was later deleted on the basis that if the list was deleted, the category was irredeemable. A later redirect at "[[List of big bust performers]]" was speedily deleted with the summary "(R3https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#R3: Recently created, implausible redirect)" - the page was then getting 864 hits a month, down from the *2,182* per day of 2008. This is a good example of where a piecemeal approach produces perverse results.
On 28/03/2014 03:18, Brian J Mingus wrote:
*Most often requested* nonexistent articles per day (based on *149* days in year *2008*).
?
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Richard Farmbrough < richard@farmbrough.co.uk> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of course. - d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 28 March 2014 01:02, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of hits but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be misremembering of course. - d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
Yeah, that's the list I was thinking of. Possibly someone should run a report again ...
- d.
I don't see why this script shouldn't be permanently installed into Common.js assuming it works.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 10:03 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 March 2014 01:02, Richard Farmbrough richard@farmbrough.co.uk wrote:
On 08/03/2014 09:20, David Gerard wrote:
I recall finding a list somewhere of article titles that got lots of
hits
but didn't have articles, but don't recall where. I may be
misremembering of
course. - d.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Most_missed_articles
Yeah, that's the list I was thinking of. Possibly someone should run a report again ...
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l