Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hathaway effect

:{{la|The Hathaway effect}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|The Hathaway effect}})

Dan Mirvish blogged on March 2 that when actress Anne Hathaway was mentioned in print, shares of unrelated mega-company Berkshire-Hathaway went up. His observation was noted by a few blogs, papers, and magazines over the next few days. User:DanMirvish created this article March 7. Per WP:NOT Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. An item of humor which got a splash of coverage does not need an encyclopedia article as if it were a scientific theory, in which case it would fail WP:FRINGE. Edison (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment as nominator: This could be redirected to Dan Mirvish. Edison (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• :Comment If it is supposed to be a scientific phenomenon, then rather than a few selected dates when she was in the press and the stock went up, I would expect to see a time correlation of all press coverage of the actress against the stock price movement. One could choose dates carefully and claim lots of bogus relationships between variable X and variable Y. Edison (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect either to the article on the creator or the actress, or a mention in both. A story of note, but in terms of having the legs to sustain an encyclopaedia article in perpetuity, this is too much of a flash in the pan. Skomorokh 19:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to some other article per Skomorokh. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Merge as above. It looks like this was a blog posting rather than an academic paper. Mirvish seems to have based his analysis on six data points. Surely every cool idea that a blogger has isn't notable. I don't think there's nearly enough substance here for this to be encyclopedic. GabrielF (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Andrevan@ 05:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as a minor blip in the blog echo chamber — akin to NOTNEWS, 'cept there's really no news behind it, just a random essay on a blog. There is no real "Hathaway effect" nor is it an encyclopedia-worthy aspect of popular culture. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Given that the first reference (which is supposed to demonstrate notability) reads humourously and bloggy to me, and takes comments with the first beginning "Good story. Unfortunately, it has a very slight drawback of being completely and utterly wrong.", I am very dubious about this being a worthy subject for a standalone article. It is a neologism, and as per Wiktionary's standards, I think it needs to show repeated use for more than one year, before we should accept it as a standalone article. In the meantime, redirect to Anne Hathaway (actress), and see if it is worth a mention there before trying ti spin it out as its own article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Carrite's well-reasoned argument. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.