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 <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 March 2014 09:20, David Gerard <dger...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 5 March 2014 22:04, Brian J Mingus <brian.min...@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. > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
