Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pao 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 merge to Ellen Pao. Sufficient consents exists here to merge and redirect; however several different locations have been brought up, and that is the question here. I'm going to close this as a merge to Ellen Pao, being that it was brought up several times within the discussion and there was no consensus for another location. That being said, if anyone wants to put minimal content about the term into a lawsuit article, I don't think it should be a problem (assuming it's relevant, of course). (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07 (T) 18:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pao effect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG, vauge coverage of a term coined for a single news article. Mrfrobinson (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vague, little used term. Few sources. Fails general notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to Ellen Pao#Gender discrimination lawsuit (or possibly Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, which doesn't mention it at the moment) seems more appropriate at the moment. If the term gains widespread acceptance, then it can be made it's own full article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with redirect The term is used in Forbes, Al Jazeera, and other news outlets. My quick search turned up a number of hits using the term. It's being used a lot... often as the whole subject of the article. If the article can't be expanded on its own now, a merge with redirect makes sense.Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect There are indeed several articles about the subject in reliable sources, but sufficient time has not lapsed to verify if this term is fleeting or permanent. It should be mentioned in both Ellen Pao and Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. If over time the term is still in use, would justify its own article as is an effect upon other's actions not part of either Pao's actions or her suit. SusunW (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This stub meets all the requirements of notability WP:N, verifiability WP:V), reliable sources WP:RS, and what Wikipedia is not WP:NOT. This article can be fixed through normal editing. The creator of the article and other editors should be given more time to develop the article. Since other editors have some questions regarding the article expressed here in this AfD, perhaps such concerns should be expressed on the talk page of the article so that they can be addressed there as suggested by WP:Articles for deletion. The topic “Pao effect” is a separate topic and differs from content contained in the article about Pao. This term is used in refs 1, 3, 4, and 5. A further search for sources resulted in this,this, this. The topic is quite separate from the person and describes the formation of a legal precident. The article is not about the lawsuit or the person. The topic has gained wide-spread acceptance as described in the sources. Unreliable sources, which are not used in the article, show that the topic is a major topic of discussion in legal blogs and other forms of online discussions. It is not a little used term and has gained widespread acceptance.

Bfpage |leave a message 10:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see offtopic discussion: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Pao effect. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this has certainly become its own phenomenon per Silicon Valley attorneys: Already seeing a Pao effect. — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Though not reliable sources, these references are from blogs that use the term "Pao effect" in their discussions, indicating that the topic is indeed used widely. a law firm blog, another blog, another blog, and another blog. These blogs do not add verifiability to the topic, they merely demonstrate the widespread use of the term.

Bfpage |leave a message 17:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those blogs are just duplicates or links to the actual articles, some are commercial in nature. It doesn't demonstrate anything at all.Mrfrobinson (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are too many forks at this table. Please, let's merge Pao_v._Kleiner_Perkins into this, or vice-versa. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question: @Bearian: Why merge a vocabulary-related article with a lawsuit-related article? How would one go about categorizing the resulting mishmash article?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins - The neologism is mentioned a number of times in sources, but it's a term about the effect of a case (or its plaintiff in filing that suit), and we already have an article about the case. A notable neologism? Maybe, but that doesn't mean it needs a stand-alone article. I just rewrote the relevant section in the article about the case, using some of the sources in this article. There's not really any need for a merge, rather than a redirect, but that's the end result here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Since the phrase refers to the trial, I don't see why we can't discuss it there. Since a merge has already been done, I guess it's not necessary. If this begins to overwhelm the parent article, it can be split off, but creating a separate article currently seems like overkill. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ottawahitech (talk) 12:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ellen Pao. This seems to be part of her impact on society, not a standalone article. Dimadick (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with redirect to Pao v. Kleiner Perkins. Has adequate notability due to major sources (Fortune, CNBC, etc.) A bit light to stand alone, but If merged, for sure keep the redirect; as noted, if the term continues to expand in use, could be spun off again. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Ellen Pao. Right now, this term has sources to illustrate notability, but I don't think the article effectively illustrates why this term can't simply be included in a biography of Ellen Pao, which would include, necessarily, information on her impact in her field. If there were perhaps more info on the history and development of the term, then an article for its linguistics use could be made, but the origin of the term is pretty straightforward... Anyway, merge with Ellen Pao! Fuzchia (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- What an unfair statement: I don't think the article effectively illustrates why this term can't simply be included in a biography of Ellen PaoThis article was nominated for deletion shorty after it was created. If it wasn’t for this nomination this article would most probably be better developed by now. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:12, 30 September 2015 (UTC) @Fuzchia: In the interest of keeping this deletion-vote-page clutter-free please join discussions on the talk page. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The purpose of this deletion page is to discuss it, Ottawahitech, according to Wikipedia's own deletion guidelines. It's not a simple vote page, and as other people's comments above mine illustrate, this is a space to discuss the merits and shortcomings of the article. It's problematic I think to splinter the discussion into different pages. That said, you're free to expand the article as this discussion continues. Fuzchia (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2015 (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.