Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dim Effect (2nd nomination)

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. Salting can be requested at WP:RFPP Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dim Effect

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

Non-notable term with no currency. The examples added since the last AFD are all WP:OR arguing for the existence of the effect, but the refs do not verify either the term itself or the alleged effect of "nature mimicing art". I declined this as a prod due to the previous AFD and the fact that user:Bob the Wikipedian had restored it (apparently unilaterally) in order to improve it with the added examples. However, I still believe this should be deleted and would have speedied it as a G4 if it were not for its history. SpinningSpark 13:17, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No notability, totally vapid article. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 17 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This phrase is essentially unique to Ratcliffe's rhinoceros beetle paper; even the scant few papers that cited it don't appear to have cared about the observed similarity between a real insect and a Pixar character. The other references don't use the phrase (and not all of them even make the art-to-nature connection explicitly). Essentially, this article rests at the intersection of WP:NEO, WP:OR, and simply WP:MADEUP--even if it did find its way into publication in a peer-reviewed journal about beetles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at first reading, I thought the "dim effect" was nature evolving into something that was represented in art beforehand; this already has all redflags for WP:FRINGE. But actually it is about natural features being discovered after their artistic representation. Well, pareidolia and Littlewood's law jump to mind, and in any case it is not "nature mimicking art" for causality reasons.

Evading any reasonable scientific threshold for minority theories, this must be weighted against WP:GNG. Need I say it fails completely? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 11:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 21 October 2016 (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.