Deletion of Streisand effect (2nd nomination)

Comment: and revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Streisand_effect&diff=146138509&oldid=145975788 this edit.  and / are satisfied, the list of examples is not  (hint: once the effect is defined using reliable sources, an article doesn't have to mention the exact term to be an example of the effect), and  and EO are not the case as we have reliable sources using the term. I've also read the previous AFD, and  was not the case. However, I do think the nominator here may be violating , particularly the sections  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:ATT||WP:OR||WP:MADEUP||WP:NEO||WP:JUSTAVOTE||WP:POINT||WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT||WP:GAME)

Comment: Adequate reliable and verifiable sources are provided to establish notability per the Wikipedia:Notability standard. You've got to love the claim that the article should be deleted because "Andy Greenberg - the author of the Forbes article - doesn't get to violate  and  any more then any one here does." We Wikipedians are the only ones under a  restriction; we are perfectly entitled to create articles based on what other people have "made up" as long as reliable and verifiable sources are provided. Even better is the claim that "if a mainstream source uses an article violating  as its source, the wikipedia article doesn't, all of a sudden, magically become justified." which implies that Wikipedia is "really" the source of the term. Doc, isn't this the plot of the move ''Back to the Future
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP||WP:NEO||WP:NEO||WP:NOR)

Comment: Satisfies  and  by the Forbes article and the Globe and Mail article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070503.wl_digg0504/BNStory/PersonalTech/home which says "The Digg-DVD donnybrook is the latest example of what's come to be called the “Streisand Effect,” in which efforts to squelch a bit of online information lead to that information being much more widely disseminated than it otherwise would have been." This coverage by two reliable independent sources satisfies  and . The phenomenon of trying to suppress something resulting in the unintended consequence of heightened publicity did not originate with Streisand's attempt to suppress an aerial photograph, but recent discussion of the phenomenon, especially on the internet, has used this term as more specific than "unintended consequences" or the coldwar term "blowback." I could not think of an article to merge it to or to redirect it to. Nixon's efforts to prevent major newspapers, via injunctions, from publishing the Pentagon Papers, is a previous instance of the same phenomenon. Additionally, Wordspy http://www.wordspy.com/words/Streisandeffect.asp cites' "The "Streisand effect" is what happens when someone tries to suppress something and the opposite occurs. The act of suppressing it raises the profile, making it much more well known than it ever would have been.—David Canton, "Attempt to suppress can backfire," London Free Press, November 5, 2005' which would be a third reliable newspaper or magazine reference if someone could confirm it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:A||WP:RS||WP:V)