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 Keep I've been reviewing the entire discussion and previous discussions for a while. I know that any close on this article is going to be contentious, so let me try to explain my rationale and read of the debate. First, the raw count of keeps vs deletes is (approximately) 44 to 39 (I may have miscounted) but for all practical purposes, it was a split decision. Second, the trend at the end was to keep (roughly 17 of the last 20 !votes were to keep.) Thus, I could have easily have closed this as "No Consensus" and been safe in doing so, but that is the easy way out and these discussions are not based upon raw counts. It is the strength of arguement. So I read this thing very thoroughly. Plus, if I closed this as "No consensus", then round 6 would be right around the corner. So I read this dilligently and it took me almost 2 hours as I looked up every link (many of which I saw repeatedly.)
First, BLP does not apply as this is not an attack on Gore. As Adb points out, this isn't an attack on Gore, but At the most, this page describes an attack on Al Gore, and it's a notable "attack." American History is littered with terms and ideas that mock famous individuals, particularly politicians. JohnBarber below lists just a few of the concepts/ideas that have been written in the past about famous politicians. This is NOT wp:otherstuffexists, but rather a demonstration that it is part of the American landscape to have these controversial ieas/concepts. Are they complimentary to the person being described? No. But that isn't the question, the question is are they well documented and in widespread use? The concept of The Gore Effect has been shown to be documented by reliable sources and in widescale usage.[1][2][3][4][5][6] And opinion pieces in major magazines/newspapers [7]
Most of the people who are !voting to delete are doing so from the perspective that they don't like it or don't think it is "encyclopedic." That it is a Neologism. But being a Neologism isn't necessarily enough to delete---heck we even have a Category:Political neologisms. The question is, is the term in widespread use? Used by a variety of people? And docuemented? THe answer to those questions is yes. Whether we agree or disagree with the concept, it is a term used by opponents of global warming and as pointed out below by weathermen. What is enclyclopedic? Saying something isn't encyclopedic, is just another way to say, "I don't like it." An encyclopedia can contain anything and everything.
But the argument by user:Technopat was probably the most compelling: Well–sourced article referring to a term in mainstream use, regardless of whether it is pro–or anti–Gore. Wikipedia is where I would turn to if I came across some such a term in the editorial of a mainstream newspaper and I would be dismayed if there were no mention of it here. As with any potentially polemical article here, may require more vigilance by the Community, but that’s pretty much par for the course. I have to agree, this would probably be my first place to come.
I also found user:Metropolitan90 argument to summarize the reasons to keep it, The article has numerous sources indicating that the "Gore Effect" is a notable satirical idea or joke used to portray Gore and other believers in global warming. The article does not portray the Gore Effect as being an actual hypothesis about the relationship between Al Gore speeches and the local weather. Those who think it is a stupid idea or joke should add additional sources, such as this Salon article, which portray the proponents of the Gore Effect negatively, rather than seeking deletion.
Wether we like it or not, this is a term that has entered into the lexicon and people will be interested in it. Deleting it, thus is not the best option, the best option is to ensure that we have moderately well written neutral article about the term and it's usage.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!08:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
This article is fundamentally unencyclopedic: it is a dictionary definition of ideological trivia comparable to "Teleprompter President" and all the Bush/chimp jokes - Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is simply not a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work. The page is ultimately an attack page; although the polemic of the original version has been cleaned up, it's little more than a list of quotes supporting an Urban Dictionary-style definition of a particular line of political invective. The fact that the page has been deleted so many times before should indicate that it does not have a hope of being a suitable subject for Wikipedia. This kind of thing is more suited to Uncyclopedia than Wikipedia. ChrisO (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nothing has changed since the last deletion debate: it's still simply a poltical cheapshot masquerading as an article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per previous deletions. There is no way this deserves its own article like this per multiple obvious policies, all raised previously. Verbalchat08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete - how many times does this stupid thing have to get deleted before people get the message? As per the above, as per previous debates; please stop wasting our time William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Keep - having not seen any of the previous versions, I cannot comment on them. However, thie current version does a good job of citing reliable sources for the use of the term. The term itself well may be an attack term, but the article does not apear to be so; it merely documents the use of the term. However, as this subject has been deleted several times, the article ought to be moved back to usespace, and then go through the proper deletion review process. - BilCat (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism. Most of the article is taken from a Washington Times editorial, which is not a news article and is therefore not a reliable source for facts. It actually says, "In October 2008 London saw the first snow since 1922...."[8] However an article from the Telegraph says, "During the 1991 event level snow lay 12 inches deep in central London, and on January 12-13, 1987, the deepest snow was in south Essex, Kent, Surrey and south London with 22 inches reported in the Maidstone and Gillingham areas."[9] The editor who inserted this obvious fallacy into the article appears to live in or near London and would be aware of this. TFD (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finding such an error would be relevant if we were debating whether the term has scientific validity. But that's not the debate. The debate is whether the article deserves to stay, not whether the Gore effect is real, which it most certainly is not.--SPhilbrickT11:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that a source which reports false information is not reliable. Of course as an editorial it fails reliability for facts anyway. TFD (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't post this earlier. Per the Lovely article currently the # 2 footnote in the article "And less than a week later, on Oct. 28, the British House of Commons held a marathon debate on global warming during London’s first October snowfall since 1922." (emphasis added)--SPhilbrickT12:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to merge. If you want a one sentence summary then fine, propose it on the talk page - but to suggest that would be a merge doesn't make sense. Verbalchat09:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we need a better name for that sort of merging. Anyway, I've done the summary now, see below...
The first source is a column by Andrew Bolt in the Melbourne Herald Sun. The second source is a column by Michael Daly in the NY Daily News. None of these are reliable sources and it would be original research to make any claim about the usage of the term by finding it used by some columnists - you need an article that explains how the term is used and who uses it. TFD (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree you'd need better sources to support an entire article on the subject, but those sources are sufficient for the claim that a coincidental juxtaposition of cold weather and a visit by Al Gore has been dubbed "the Gore Effect." I'm just proposing that a single sentence linked from a redirect is the least worst way to handle this perennial proposal! - Pointillist (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Apologetic Keep. Sorry, I appreciate the serious opinions lined up against me on this. But the article has a certain number of merits and would probably be in the better half of articles on the English WP since we have so so many much trashier ones. We shouldn't take ourselves so seriously, its ok..--BozMotalk10:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a hoax, so that is "right out." Does not attack Gore in any way, so that is not grounds for deletion. Makes no contentious claims about Gore, so BLP is not grounds for deletion. "Per previous deletions" manages to be a non-reason -- if one opposes an article, one ought to come up with a current rationale. The term has now been found in almost every US newspaper. What we see instead is "IDONTLIKEIT" raised as an argument against a non-polemic piecem which is an exceedingly low-weight argument in any AfD discussion, and should be viewed accordingly. Absent any high-weight grounds for deletion, default to Keep" Collect (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agenda driven article, sourced to partisan opinion pieces OR opinion pieces that have taken note of the obscure neologism only to point out that it's childish and stupid.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was all ready to vote delete, but then I looked at WP:WINAD, WP:NOR, and WP:V. The term, like it or not, has been defined in a a Washington Times editorial. While blogs and the like are not considered reliable sources, editorials in mainstream newspapers are considered reliable sources. The threshold that a neoglism must achieve per WP:WINAD is that source is "about the term or concept" and is not merely using the term. The editorial does define the term and combined with the other major press coverage, is a legitimate topic for an article. Movementarian (Talk) 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:RS#Statements of opinion: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." TFD (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Honestly, I'm not bothered whether the article stays or goes due to an opinion on global warming, which seems to be the case for some (not an attack on anyone in particular, just a personal observation). I just don't think we should be deleting things that meet our standard. That said, I think you might be right on this one. WP:N states that a topic must have "reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail." Going by WP:RS#Statements of opinion, editorials don't count which makes sense because they are basically original research. Barring the presentation of an article (not an opinion piece) in a reliable publiction that reports on the topic, I am changing my opinion. I looked myself, but everything I have found are blogs and opinion pieces. Delete.
Keep. The sources are solid, please feel free to check them out. This is a real topic. In my opinion, the opposition to this article appears to be partisan in nature. Note this and this and this.Cla68 (talk) 11:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Check the sources. They all directly address the topic, so there are no problems with WP:SYN. I know because I checked them all personally before recommending that the article be posted in main space. The partisan nature of this nomination is relevant, because I honestly don't see any other reason why an article as well-sourced as this one would be nominated. Cla68 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I saw this article because it was briefly linked in Global warming controversy. It does not belong there, as it is anecdotal at best. Unlike some of the flawed theories at that page, the Gore Effect, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "is not even wrong!". However, while it fails as science, it doesn't purport to be science, and is correctly described as a humorous term. The term is ubiquitous, occurring in enough reliable sources that it is very plausible an individual might turn to Wikipedia to learn more about it. I feel strongly that there should be an article about the Gore effect—I'm less strongly convinced this is the article. But we don't generally delete articles that simply need some improvement to meet our standards. It would help immensely if, for example, the Columbia Journalism Review article pointing out that it doesn't meet the burden of scientific proof. The article feels unbalanced - quite a number of references talking about the anecdotes, not many challenging it. Surely there are some other than the CJR.--SPhilbrickT11:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for glossing over the Benin and Siegel references—the balance is better than my first impression, but could still be improved.--SPhilbrickT12:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Bushism sources seem to be sourced mostly op-eds, just like this article. In fact, there are perhaps half a dozen cites to the same Time "best of" feature. I fail to see how similar op-eds in the Wash Times, The Globe and Mail, The Times, Herald-Sun, etc, fail where the similar Bushism sources succeed. And the Great Moments, section (I didn't realize at first it wasn't an article) is not sourced at all and describes the creation of a comedian, not even a journalist. If Gore Effect goes, a lot has to go with it, IMO. ATren (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not an attack page and to say it is is just plain silly, it is a well known phrase and meets all the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia mark nutley (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to query - it's an article about a joke (some prior versions pretended to take the idea seriously). A funny joke? Depends on your POV. --Orange Mike | Talk13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does an article about a joke have a bulleted list of press mentions? Do other articles about jokes have lists of press mentions? Hipocrite (talk) 13:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In a previous AfD I recommended weak keep because, although there were many sources, there was only one written about the term in detail. The sourcing of this article looks a little better than the one I recommended a weak keep on (and I still would have preferred to keep that article). This isn't the biggest article but it's all verifiable and in my opinion, notable because it's discussed in multiple reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely incorrect. All the sources that were present when the article was posted to main space meet our definition as reliable. I know because I checked them all first before recommending that the article be posted to main space. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem and why I do not believe that the sources are reliable. Everything that has been presented is from a blog or opinion piece, which do not meet the standard for reliable sources. Can you point to a non-opinion source that addresses the subject directly in detail? Something factual that has undergone the editorial process? Just because you say that the sources are reliable does not make it so. Movementarian (Talk) 05:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not me that is saying that they are reliable sources, it's WP's policy. Anything published by a major newspaper, journal, or magazine is considered reliable, including newspaper editorials and blogs. Also, not all the sources for the article are editorials. The definition itself comes from a book. Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to point to the Politico article too. I also want to point out that the context of the editorials is important, in terms of discussing whether or not opinion pieces are acceptable for establishing notability. WP:RS talks about how opinion pieces are generally acceptable for sourcing opinions/perspectives/viewpoints of authors, but generally not for sourcing facts. I think notability is more subtle. An anonymous opinion piece in a local or niche publication, or a piece from a non-notable author, I think would play little to no role in establishing notability. But for example this editorial: [10] is by Terry Wogan, a very solidly notable figure, published in the telegraph, a major news source, and although the whole piece is not written in detail about the Gore Effect, the mention is substantive / non-trivial. I would factor that source in more solidly in establishing notability, even though it's an editorial. Cazort (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obscure meme of the fringe ideologues; sources are incredibly weak. No more encyclopedic than the fact that some haters called the former First Lady "Hitlary" Clinton. --Orange Mike | Talk13:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Bushism" returns 99,500 google hits[11]; "Bushisms" returns 152,000 Google hits[12]; "Gore Effect" returns 122,000 google hits[13]; "The Gore Effect" returns 743,000 google hits[14]. 'Nuff said.
Actually, your stats are off. There are 443 GHits for "The Gore Effect", while there are over 800 (google caps at 800) for "Bushism" [15]. Given that the premise you used above actually demonstrates the opposite of what caused your vote, would you like the closer to assume you are voting delete? Please also read Wikipedia:GHITSHipocrite (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your stats are "off" Hipocrite. Walking through the hits as you have done does not give the actual number of unique hits. "Google's list of unique results is constructed by first selecting the top 1000 results and then eliminating duplicates without replacements. Hence the list of unique results will always contain fewer than 1000 results regardless of how many webpages actually matched the search terms." [16]. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was taking another look and found a less-skewed result. "The Gore Effect" encompasses much more than references to the humorous concept which accounts for the overly large return I cited above. These look more representative...
"Humor Bushism" returns 161,000 google hits[17]; "Humor 'Bushisms'" returns 295,000 Google hits[18]; "humor 'Gore Effect'" returns 2,550 google hits [19]; "humor 'The Gore Effect'" returns 132,000 google hits[20].
Could you confirm you've read WP:GHITS? You are aware that google "hit" estimates are, in fact, terrible, as demonstrated by the fact that adding "the" in front of "gore effect," which should lower hits, in this case, raises them by a factor of 40. IE - your google stats are meaningless. It appears you are taking random statistics and using them to justify a conclusion you've already drawn. Is that accurate? Hipocrite (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For example, [21] "Humor", "The Gore Effect" has 465 actual hits, while [22], "Humor," "Bushism," again caps out at "more than 1000." Given that your new search terms again demonstrate the opposite of what caused you to vote keep, are you now voting delete? Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.
I believe 132,000 adequately satisfies the popular culture parameter...and "Bushism" has been around considerably longer than "Gore Effect" which probably impacts the return as well.JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WELLKNOWN is as much a part of policy as anything you've cited: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. If I'm misreading this, I eagerly await your speedy deletion of Bushisms as an attack page -- because I'd love to see the fireworks. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pointillist. A full article for this isn't warranted. With the addition to the Al Gore article and a redirect, it's covered. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are reliable sources (i.e. not editorials) that actually discuss the use of the term in depth then fair enough, but we don't seem to have that. Rather, we have a few jokey type columns and examples of usage. None of this amount to something we can write an encyclopaedic article with. Quantpole (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Delete per Guettarda, esp. the comment that Mr. Gore is a real living person. I don't see this as notable enough to have a whole article about it. I think the editor Pointillist adding it to the other article covers this. I also agree with the others that this is an attack piece. With all the deletions of this article, common sense says this article shouldn't be. --CrohnieGalTalk16:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of, if I heard the term I would expect to find it on WP. It is preposterous to view this article as an attack on the subject.Jarhed (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Al Gore and the environment. While I agree that sourcing for this article is more than adequate, the overall effect is that of a "POV fork." It should be merged with the Gore-environment article. A separate article on this subject is overkill. ScottyBerg (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a "POV fork" effect here, since (a) there is plenty of sourcing to show negative attitudes toward the joke and (b) the subject isn't primarily about Al Gore or even "Al Gore and the environment" -- It's about how a funny set of coincidences is used by one side in a political debate to make a point about the variability of the weather as a symbol for variability and unpredictability in climate forecasting. As a symbol, it's got some value for rhetorical effect, but no value in terms of evidence for policymaking. Any article in Category:Political neologisms could be accused of being in effect a POV fork of some topic, but we should have separate pages on subjects that stand on their own as satire or neologisms. Sticking this in another article would limit the space for it for WP:UNDUE reasons, and it's worth having enough space for definition, usage history, commentary, etc. By giving this enough space, we actually provide an opportunity for someone interested in the topic to see how it does and does not provide insight into the topic of climate change. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
convenience break
On reliable sourcing Various editors have made the point that the sourcing isn't reliable. But that's just factually wrong. I just noticed something: Although the article cites a Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) article [23] which links to Erika Lovely's piece [24] at the Politico website, the Wikipedia article itself doesn't cite this reliable, secondary source. The Lovely article, "Tracking 'The Gore Effect'", which is not an opinion piece, addresses the subject in detail. Criticism of Lovely's article at the bottom of the CJR piece does not address it's reliability (although the CJR piece does severely criticize a separate article that Lovely wrote). The CJR critic calls the Lovely article vacuous and asinine -- not unreliable, which is our concern here. We have absolutely no reason to doubt that the Lovely article does not reliably give us a multitude of facts about the subject, a number of which are in our article with citations to different sources. Nor is the article simoply an example of usage -- it is in fact an exploration of the topic, citing its history and how it is used in climate debate. I'm adding this source to the article (two-edit diff [25]), and it should make obsolete all comments so far about lack of reliable sourcing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing isn't the issue. As I said in the nomination at the start of this discussion, the problem is the fact that the material is fundamentally unencyclopedic. It's the kind of thing that might merit an entry in the Urban Dictionary. It's not an appropriate topic for a mainstream encyclopedia. No amount of sourcing will change that. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have brought up whether the sourcing is adequate for notability, so it is an issue for this AfD. I addressed your arguments in the comment with my !vote above, where I pointed out that widespread Wikipedia practice has been to retain this kind of material as encyclopedic as long as it meets policy requirements. I'll add that the topic has been thought by reliable sources to be notable for their purposes of news reporting (Politico) or commentary (Columbia Journalism Review, Huffington Post, Washington Times -- all reliable at least for us to cite their opinions). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating two different things. The sourcing is poor. That doesn't mean that the sources are necessarily poor. It just means that the sources don't adequately demonstrate the notability of the term. I pointed out that widespread Wikipedia practice has been to retain this kind of material as encyclopedic as long as it meets policy requirements - the policy that matters most is WP:NOT. Dicdefs of neologisms aren't encyclopaedia unless there are good secondary sources that can be used to add something substantial, beyond a dicdef. There's nothing of the case here, just some examples of use. Which is, of course, OR. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing of the case here, just some examples of use. You're factually wrong. This material from the Lovely source is not "just some examples of use": "there’s no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence" [...] "Tracking The Gore Effect 'doesn’t contribute much to the actual making of policy,' said House Energy and Commerce Committee Republican spokeswoman Lisa Miller. But it 'can be fun.'" [...] The Lovely article also provides a definition of the term and examples of use of the term from a third party. The article is not simply a dictionary definition with examples, which is what the "just some examples of use" objection (based on WP:DICDEF policy) is all about. The commentary from Huffington Post, CJR and other sources are also not "just examples of use" but commentary on the subject of the article. Your objections are without basis in Wikipedia policy. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the Columbia Journalism Review thought of the journalistic quality of that particular article: [26] "anachronistically bad", "yesterday’s terrible article", "pretty shocking ignorance of good journalistic practice", "vacuous" and "asinine". If thats the best source .... Active Banana (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the author of that CJR article said most of that about the main article, not the sidebar, which is cited here. The "vacuous" and "asinine" bits were about this sidebar. The CJR article does not say that Lovely's sidebar was unreliable. That's our interest here. The CJR author's blustering about "vacuous" and "asinine" is irrelevant. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the German source and as well the hint to the German article. Harald Martenstein in Die Zeit sees the effect as Nature resp God having some humour. Of cause humour does exist only in Germany nowadays. The Metoffice drove it out of great Britain I assume and its not legally advisable to mock Climatism in the UK. In earnest - the effect got enough media cloud internationally to be mentioned in a major german Newspaper and the German WP and I assume the denialists here have finally to acknowledge it here as well. --Polentario (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I argued to Delete a previous version of this article, but I think enough reliable sources have now been found to demonstrate that this is a notable meme, no matter how silly many of us think it is. I don't think it has particular issues with the NPOV or BLP policies, if carefully written. I would be open to a merge with Al Gore and the environment or elsewhere, but I think the basic content here - that about the concept itself, if not the unnecessary list of alleged examples - is worth keeping somewhere. Robofish (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I am amused to read my comments on the last MFD of this material: "this is never going to make it into article-space. It's been twice rejected at AFD, and I can't imagine any plausible circumstances where it becomes article-worthy." Well, I've got to eat my words. I've changed my mind: this has become worthy of inclusion in article-space, though whether as a separate article or as part of another one is a matter for discussion. Robofish (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep—this is an exceptionally interesting article on a topic I had previously never heard of. The existence of the concept (not its truth, obviously, but the notability of the satire itself) appears to be well-covered by numerous reliable sources including the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Daily News, Politico, The Times and The Washington Examiner to name but a few. Sure, it's sarcastic – but we have an article on pastafarianism. Sure, it's perhaps demaning to Al Gore – but that's no reason to omit it. Well-cited articles on notable topics should not be deleted. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 09:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well written, well sourced and encyclopedic article about a notable eponym. The fact that previous articles with the same title have been deleted is not a good argument for deletion - we should be considering the contents of this particular article, not any previous incarnations. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A silly article about an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue. There is a picture of Bush apparently talking into an upside-down telephone handset that is much funnier ("Three Brazilian soldiers are dead?! Just how many are there in a brazillion?"), but only the most unbalanced view of Wikipedia would think that that deserved its own WP article. Neither does this. --Nigelj (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I covered that in my !vote, saying, "an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue" - please don't try to alter the sense of what I wrote by focussing attention onto only one part of it. --Nigelj (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unimportant is your subjective opinion. At the 'pedia we judge these things in terms of WP:Notability and we have standards for that. Standards which this article meets. We also cover "silly" subjects in a serious way. I mention this long, deep, wide, august Wikipedia tradition in my !vote above. Your argument amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When you can gather up anough reliable sources about your "brazillion" joke, you might have an article there. As of now, your comments are outside Wikipedia policy, and vee haff veys of dealink mitt dat. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How dare you tell me that my contribution here is "outside Wikipedia policy"! Do you want me to go through all the votes that you do like and find all the ones that don't explicitly reference a wikipedia policy document? Picking one at random, "a well written, well sourced and encyclopedic article about a notable eponym" - there are policies like WP:MOS, WP:CITE, WP:V etc that this contributor did not cite in the text of their !vote, but I don't see you up there telling them that their contribution is "outside Wikipedia policy". I think, when you are in a hole, you should consider ditching the spade. When you WP:AGF, you should allow others to contribute without concerted bully-boy tactics to invalidate their contributions or to scare them away from making future contributions. My judgement, under the policy of WP:NOTABILITY, is that this article is about an "an unimportant attempt at belittling an important issue", which I believe makes it "silly": as silly as would be any other whole article about a American political joke that saw a small amount of local and humorous coverage within a small sector of the US press for a short time. Then I get jumped on by the waiting bully-boys to try to invalidate that view and focus attention onto everything I said apart from "unimportant", and then to claim that "unimportant" means nothing here, unless I say "non-notable" and wikilink relevant policies. What is this? A free !vote, a trial, or a rally? --Nigelj (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the concept attempts, in your opinion, to "belittle an important issue" is immaterial. Our page on Bushisms is about the important issue of the US having a semi-literate President. Our page on Yes Minister is about a concept which poked fun at the British government. Being a neutral encyclopedia, we don't exclude material simply because it belittles important issues (and again, that is only your opinion). ╟─TreasuryTag►international waters─╢ 14:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that is your opinion. My original !vote was intended to read, to an informed reader who is well aware of WP policies as I am sure the closing admin will be, that this article is about a tiny non-notable corner of both a notable subject (global climate) and a WP:BLP (Al Gore). As such, while it may warrant a well-sourced sentence or two in an article on one of those topics, it does not warrant an article of its own. If judged in the light of any other politically motivated jibe at a US political figure, it is seen to be of such marginal importance (notability) or interest (e.g. humour value) in the light of all the other such material out there, that it should be deleted. One article on all the Bushisms that for many worldwide characterised that presidency, or one on all the series of Yes Minister that were aired, that were widely regarded even by the UK PM at the time, is a completely different level of coverage. This is one article about one repeated attempt at humour at the expense of one US politician, that received little or no coverage outside the US local and occasionally national press. All that, in two lines and with a bit of humour too. Then the attacks began - focussing the reader's attention onto the humour rather than the main point, then that the main point is invalid under guidelines for administrators that recommend ignoring '"bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets', saying, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Now you compare the article with things that are in no way comparable and reiterate that my "opinion [...] is immaterial". That is not rational discussion, which should be basis of comments in an AfD (per WP:AFD) --Nigelj (talk) 15:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nigelj, why is it that every time you post here your edit removes my reply to Guy, below? Would you please stop doing that? Please restore it. Your statements have all been answered above, and this is getting a little long. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My statements have all been answered?! It's your and others' comments that needed answering. My explanations may not make you happy, but I had every right to make them. Don't challenge my views and then tell me you don't like the fact that I responded in the necessary detail. I've apologised for the edit conflict problems all that created on the talk page here. --Nigelj (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and allow redirect. Obviously this is kookery but the question is whether it's notable kookery. I say not. Guy (Help!) 12:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thought, reading this AfD, was to Merge, but looking at the sourced and detailed depth in the article, I realized that what is available in notable and usable sources would unbalance any article on Al Gore, even the more specific Al Gore and the environment. At the very least, this should be merged, with the full article available in history for possible future use, but keeping it and having a section in Al Gore and the environment, in summary style, is superior. All the stuff about "attack page" is nonsense, at least not as it is now, and I'm a supporter of Al Gore. At the most, this page describes an attack on Al Gore, and it's a notable "attack." It does not validate that attack. God does have a sense of humor, and, I believe, so does Al Gore. --Abd (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons that are explained better by others before me I see no reason why this warrants more than a passing remark ibn either the Al Gore or Global Warming article.If I were looking for a collection of jokes WP is not the first that comes to mind.--- Nomen NescioGnothi seautoncontributions15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a piddling neologism. As I noted in a recent AfD, "Usage does not equal notability". Usage of the term in a derisive manner is not the same as reliable sources covering the term itself and its meaning. What few sources that do address the subject itself are OpEds, and we do not push opinion as fact around here. Thus, per WP:RS#Statements of opinion, there is no basis at all here for an article. I would not that several of the "keep because it's harmless" !votes should be weighted quite far down the scale when it comes time to close this. I would not strenuously oppose a redirect to Al Gore and the environment, but even that is a little shaky. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single source don't adequately demonstrate the notability of the term. At best, it justifies a mention in the main article, using politico as its source. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable, secondary source #2(a) http://www. examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d15-The-Gore-Effect-sets-in-on-Copenhagen-as-heavy-snow-is-forecast and #2(b) http://www. examiner.com/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m12d7-The-Gore-Effect-strikes-as-the-UN-climate-summit-begins Now, for some freakish reason, the Examiner is on some kind of Wikipedia Spam list, but if you remove the spaces after the "www." you should be able to get to the articles. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable Source #4 (transcript, "American Morning" on CNN) [31]
Four sources, which, taken as a whole, certainly provide significant depth of coverage, including numerous examples, definition of the subject, criticism of the subject and information about attitudes toward the subject by those who use the term. This is in addition to the commentary and other sources, which can be used for limited purposes in the article. All WP:GNG criteria are met. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep swinging and missing, Noroton. #2 is a blurb about its urbandictionary entry, while #3 and #4 are one-off namedrops. No coverage of the neologismm itself in a reliable source has been presented in this AfD. Tarc (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thank my lucky stars you're not the ump. You're misusing the word "blurb". Come to think of it, you're misusing the phrase "reliable source". The Toronto Globe & Mail is one. It's irrelevant that the mention is short in specific sources: the substantial coverage required by WP:N means overall coverage by the sources taken as a whole: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail -- not all sources, just "sources". For this kind of subject, we have plenty of details, particularly from the Politico article. The other two sources are also reliable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the best definition we can get is the Gobe and Mail's cut and paste of the user generated content in Urban Dictionary.com, we are in trouble. Active Banana (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To change sports metaphors, if the best you can do is move the goalposts from "reliable enough to include in a Wikipedia article" toward criteria for handing out some kind of journalism prize, your argument is in trouble. There is actually no doubt that the definition is correct (plenty of other sources that use the term have cited the "Urban Dictionary" website). Providing proof from the Toronto paper is just reliable sourcing that should satisfy anyone. Cut-and-paste is just fine for Wikipedia as long as the cutter-and-paster's organization is a reliable source. It's the source's judgment we're relying on, not the source's originality. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First of all, the "Gore Effect" is an idiotic claim in a world full of people who have no clue about science or the scientific method. But that should be irrelevant to this discussion. The term itself has received significant press coverage, e.g., [32]NY daily news, Dec. 20, 2009, "The Gore Effect brings snow to New York City.", [33], the Columbia Journalism Review, noting how impossibly stupid the concept is yet cited by the press, [34] Politico, [35] Salon, [36] Herald-Sun (AU), [37] (NY times, albeit blog commentary), etc. All those who wish to claim the coverage is insignificant probably haven't looked, but I steeled myself and did. So, the term and the concept is clearly notable, and there is certainly enough out there to allow the creation of an encyclopedic article. Personally, I would rather than when someone googles "gore effect", they'd be greeted with this as one of the top hits instead of some IQ-challenged outlet like The Climate Depot.[38]. The average editor may not believe it, but there are millions of people in the world who actually believe crap like this is real instead of a joke, even though the jokesters know it. It comports with the goals of this project to retain this article. Should we delete articles on Young Earth creationism because its silly from a scientific perspective? I would think not, because the subject is notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources, and the term is definitely notable. Whether or not the article is written with a proper level of neutrality is a separate issue. Torchiesttalk/contribs16:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please excuse me if I break any rules since I am not familiar with posting here. However when I saw that "The Gore Effect" page was up for deletion, being a AGW skeptic for many years and having heard of someone named "William Connelly" that seems to have a lot of pull for censorship of any articles in Wikipedia that are critical of the AGW crowd, I had to come here to see if he was behind this attempt as well...
Well..... no surprise here.... I say... keep "The Gore Effect" and stop deleting articles just because they don't support your particular beliefs.... Wouldn't it be interesting if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was skeptics that had influence in Wikipedia and deleted the AGW articles.... Catoni52 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)— Catoni52 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Hi - please remember to assume good faith. I've already argued to keep the article, but no one is trying to censor anything here. Talk of politically-motivated factions controlling our articles is highly unhelpful, and in any case irrelevant to the question of whether this particular topic deserves an article. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an original synthesis by search engine. Apparently, global warming denialists have a sense of humor and a particular disdain for Al Gore, but there is no consensus definition and no independent sources have referenced the term or studied it as a term or as a phenomenon. Until such time as it becomes a real meme as documented by people who are reliable sources in such matters, Wikipedia should not be hosting a page that contains a laundry list of sources who have combined the terms "Gore" and "Effect" to stand for a variety of ideas. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ScienceApologist. I was looking for a view that swayed me, and the argument that no reliable sources adress the term in any suficient detail (as opposed to use the term, or mention it in trivial detail as part of a puff piece) makes it clear that we are comitting original synthesis by search engine, an essay that desperatly needs creating. Hipocrite (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the synthesis? That the term exists and is discussed frequently by the press? Sources cover that. Perhaps also see the sources I mentioned in my !vote above, which would clearly be up to snuff for most articles on wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, primary sources cover that. There are no reliable secondary sources that cover the topic in detail - merely examples of use. We are taking a couple of primary sources (things that use the term, not things that analyize the term) and using them to synthesize our article. That's not what we do. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. There are sources discussing the term and its use in the press. E.g., [39], [40]. Its not a just a term used in articles that never take cognizance of the concept's use and spread.--Milowent (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you didn't quite understand what I said. The second link has exactly is an example of use - a primary source. The first link has exactly two sentences devoted to the phrase - while that is a secondary source, it's evealuted merely in passing, certainly without the depth required for encyclopedic treatment, and the source itself is not what the article is based off of. Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two more primary sources, and one secondary source (theglobeandmail) that does little more than provide a dicdef. No secondary sources adress this article in the depth required for an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite is right. There are only two secondary sources claimed and they marginally contradict each other in definitions. If there is no consensus in the two minimal secondary sources we have for a definition, the term is clearly not rising to the level of encyclopedic yet. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite is wrong. The Globe & Mail and the New England News Channel are certainly doing reporting functions as second-party sources. I see your point about the CNN transcript. Marginal contradictions are not fatal problems with sources. Nor do all sources have to be beyond minimal under WP:N, just the overall sourcing. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect This isn't even a fringe theory like Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. No one is seriously claiming Gore influences the environment. it's a political joke. Wikipedia shouldn't be used a collection point for nonsense. We could just as well start a list of "unusual" weather every time Obama plays basketball or Sarah Palin gets a new outfit. A sentence or two in a broader article with a redirect might be ok, but not an entire article. --agr (talk)
second convenience break
Keep An interesting example of extremely effective satire, as judged by the standard that some people take it to be a real crank theory. Well worth covering--enough sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per ScienceApologist and ArnoldReinhold. It's a Neologism, not an encyclopedic subject. At the most, it should be merged to the Al Gore article and amended to state what it really is: an ad hominem attack invented by climate change deniers. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People here are losing sight of the fact that just because WP has an article on a subject by no means implies endorsement of the ideas that carry it. We have an article on Flat Earth and another on the Flat Earth Society. That does not mean WP editors believe the Earth is flat, only that we recognize some loose nuts do. We have many articles about arguments against scientific facts and theories; they merely reflect that some people disbelieve them, not that WP is anti-science. Furthermore, the Bushisms article, imo, is far more negative against Bush than the Gore Effect, represented as humorous, is against Gore, but since whole books by important journalists have been written about Bushisms, it's altogether proper to have an article about them. A challenge: what "good, solid, mainstream, reliable" sources devote time to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Intelligent falling? Pardon, your bias is showing. Yopienso (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Note that we cover a gamut of conspiracy theories, not because they are true or supported by the mainstream media, but because they exist. Yopienso (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IF has been discussed in Nature[41] no less. It's not a question of bias but of notability as judged by notable discussion in notable places. TV weathermen joking and op-eds opining about God's sense of humour don't really cut it. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please use caution when invoking WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. First, the essay notes "you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do" (emphasis added), while most editors referencing similar material are doing so as part of an argument, not as their sole argument. Second, the reason the argument is flawed because the other article may not be notable. I think we've all seen examples where the argument is tendered, and the response is to prod or AfD the other article. In those cases, the argument is that this article has as much notability as that article, and the response is "agreed, they both go". However, people have noted quite a number of similar circumstances, including Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences urban legend, and I haven't seen evidence that editors are moving to delete the other articles.--SPhilbrickT11:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SPhilbrick. I am familiar with the Other Stuff policy; note we're not pointing out "Article X" but "Category X." Categories, in fact. As said below, we have a whole category on political satire, but apparently some editors feel GW is deadly serious and we can find no humor in it. Perhaps it is, but we may as well die laughing as frowning. Yopienso (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Al Gore and the environment" article. This may mean that the article will have to be shortenened. Then, if with the consensus of the editors there it is decided that the section should be expanded, one can create a new article solely devoted to the Gore effect. You then won't have big disputes about whether the topic is notable enough to have a big article devoted to it. Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search of the google news for "Gore Effect" comes up with at least 5 different usages. Applied to: cold weather during AG's speaking engagements, the impact of Inconvenient Truth, the remaking of oneself after a political defeat, and "the decline in environmentalism" during the first Clinton/Gore administration, and small "g" "gore effect" as some type of fashion trend which actually seemed to have the most number of gnews hits. This does not appear to be a "real" topic or defined usage on which to build an actual encyclopedic article. Active Banana (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep again. If you google Bielefeld and Conspiracy, you might find different topics, the Bielefeld Conspiracy as such has enough media cloud for an own article. One might consider at least the German article in Die Zeit as a real second source, since it mockingly reports about the media attention besides the effect as such. A merger with the solemm litany about St. Albert and the environment makes as much sense as to merge Lolcat into Cat. --Polentario (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC) Indented, user already !voted above--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If we delete The Gore Effect, lets delete Bushisms and even the articles on specific terms like Strategery and Internets. Those articles poke fun at Bush just like this one pokes fun at Gore. All have become "catch-phrases" and Wikipedia would demonstrate a degree of bias if The Gore Effect were deleted. I don't think the article argues Gore's research, it just defines and explains the history behind a popular catch-phrase.--NortyNort (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Per Hipocrite I think: Is this article about an actual hypothesized effect on weather, or about a funny joke? Tho some jokes are notable enough to be an encyclopedia entry, this one seems no more notable than the average Rush-ism, Christgau-ism, or any other writer's reusable turn of phrase. That the writer is lobbying for his neologism's inclusion is also a concern. / edg☺☭00:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing to me that an encyclopedia that includes an article entitled Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer, about one April Fool's joke in Discover magazine, balks at including one about a joke on Al Gore that is referenced by the media every time there's cold weather when he's making a presentation about GW. Guess we'll have to get rid of the Obamaisms, too.
Being entirely practical, the article begins, "The 'Gore Effect' is a satirical construct..." I would beg that if hotter heads prevail and the ruling WP bias can't accept this well-written and informative article, that at least it will be merged with the Al Gore and the environment article and there will be a redirect from it to that one. Yopienso (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're laughing with me or reprimanding me. In any case, WP:SARCASM is amusing--thanks for pointing me to it--and I'm honestly not intending to be snarky or counterproductive. My sincere apologies if Long live the Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer! Now, where's my teleprompter? And, why is it snowing at my GW conference? was offensive. I'm for keeping all that stuff. Here's hoping cooler heads prevail and this article as well as others about the popular culture, humorous hoaxes, pranks, and spoofs will be spared the axe. Yopienso (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the reason Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer hasn't been nominated for deletion is because the idea wasn't intended as a satire of global warming or any other environmental political issue that some WP editors may be taking a little too seriously. Cla68 (talk) 06:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milowent convinced me. People who google this phrase should come up with a responsible, balanced article by Wikipedia that notes weather is not the same thing as climate, instead of a partisan site that simply will reinforce their prejudices. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Changing to strong delete in light of later experience It appears certain editors will not allow any statements that question applications of the meme. Since this makes it impossible to create a neutral and properly sourced encyclopedic article, I must regretfully change my view. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be suggesting that WP:OR and WP:SYN should be waived in order to accomodate some desired sense of NPOV. As opposition appears to be discovering (and, perhaps, as should be anticipated), RS sourcing that might be cited as being critical of the "factual" basis for this satire (or ANY satire) will be a tough nut to find. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm concerned with errors in statements of facts about geophysical observations. We're being forced to lie to the reader because making a reliably sourced statement that a certain event did not in fact occur would be "synthesis." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that the issue is so trivial, and so un-discussed by sensible secondary sources, that it is hard to imagine anybody doing a proper scientific study on the real observable facts about God altering the weather when Gore speaks about GW. In the absence of this, the article will be left with a strong bias towards, "Well, you never know, He does move in mysterious ways sometimes..." If anything, it deserves no more than a passing mention in some other article that does have a sensible purpose to it. --Nigelj (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even thinking about something as complicated as that. Just things like telling the reader that there were record low temperatures on a given date when in fact the temperature was near normal. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. My apologies for misinterpreting your argument. However, I disagree that it's a reason for deletion. If it's notable, it should have a Wikipedia article or redirect, even if it were based on lies. — Arthur Rubin(talk)15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And coverage by news organizations. It's worth noting that Wikipedia has whole categories for this phenomenon, and there's a serious side to it, at least as a phenomenon worth thinking about: Category:Political neologisms, Category:Political satire. In an encyclopedia of 3.2 million articles, I think this is actually encyclopedic, even from a serious perspective, because readers can learn something from the article alone (as Boris says just above) or by looking at a bunch of these articles together. Aside from that, we shouldn't try to pretend that it's not part of the nature of Wikipedia that sometimes we just gotta get our grove on. If we don't have a good emotional outlet in creating serious articles about funny (but important enough) subjects, we'll just get goofy in more destructive ways. The encyclopedia is edited by anybody -- except Vulcans. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The striking thing is that the references in the most reliable sources (Time etc), and those that aren't editorials or other kinds of opinion articles are using the neology in quite a different way than the one being "promoted" by the article. Which is the effect that Gore has had on people's outlook (example: Sayre, Carolyn (Feb 8, 2007). "Measuring the Al Gore Effect". Time. Retrieved 2010-06-11.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The Gore effect" is the kind of phrase writers tend to use to try to make their writing snappier ("the Clinton effect" [42] "the Obama effect" [43] "The Blair Effect" [a book title] [44]). The subject of the article is the meaning as a satirical joke. In a paragraph that another editor deleted from the article, I noted that the phrase was used for other meanings, one of them actually very similar to this one. I've collected a few diffs of the older and alternative meanings (for instance, an Albany Times-Union article from April 2008 uses "the Gore effect" referring to his influence on ordinary people to "have an Earth-friendly 'moment'"[45]), and I'll try to include that in the article soon, but the article covers an encyclopedic subject, not a dictionary subject, so alternate meanings are peripheral. Any further discussion about this should be on the article talk page. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see I'm contributing too much to this discussion, and will try to stop. In sum:
This is at least the fifth version of a page that keeps perennially getting created and deleted, along with the many "Keeps" on this page, show there is no consensus to delete, but rather a strong effort to include.
how many times does this stupid thing have to get deleted before people get the message? shows a deliberate effort by a partisan group to control content.
Since the article is about satire, not science, reliable sources are not limited to our usual mainstream organs, but should include opinion pieces. We have a plethora of articles (not "Article X," but "Category X") about outrageously false pseudoscience. There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers. In one sense, ChrisO, WP is "a serious, respectable reference work." But it is not stodgy nor strictly serious and respectable. Note for one example among hundreds the WP:SARCASM "policy guidelines." The Encyclopedia Britannica, a thoroughly stodgy, serious, and respectable reference work, omits these units of measurement which we gleefully include.
"There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers. " WHAT???? Hell no. (struck based on clarification below) Active Banana (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, rats! A sensible comment on my nonsensical comment before I could delete it. I was out thinning carrots and mentally going over what I'd written and realized I'd not been thinking straight. Active Banana, I was going to delete "We have a plethora of articles (not "Article X," but "Category X") about outrageously false pseudoscience. There is no mainstream support for any of it, nor does the mainstream pay much attention to it. Most sourcing, therefore, must necessarily come from fringe writers." The first sentence repeats what's been said before, while the second two were meant to refer to quoting silly nonsense from fringe sources, but actually articles about that silly nonsense are based on RS's that quote that silly nonsense. Now, to proceed: should I delete that as well as your comment and this one, or just leave this whole mess here? Yopienso (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, AB; my preference was to delete, but I can strike. Or we can come back and delete. Feel free to delete anything I strike. Yopienso (talk) 04:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only argument for deletion that holds water is "non-notable"; the current form is neither an attack page nor a hoax. I believe that the widespread use of the term in reliable sources, along with the Politico and Daily News articles covering the term more in-depth, are sufficient to establish notability under the GNG. Buddy431 (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are reliable sources and the topic might even be barely notable enough to qualify for a stand alone article, so keeping it wouldn't violate policy/guidelines. But that doesn't mean it's appropriate to fork it off, either. The "Gore effect" seems to be adequately covered already in Al Gore and the environment, so this content fork is not justified. YilloslimeTC20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or partial merge to Al Gore and the environment; failing that, delete. While the topic is probably technically notable, this does not mean that we need to have an article about it. Many minor aspects of the life of very notable people are so well-reported that we have enough material to write an article about them, but at some point we have to draw a line so as not to get one article for each and every piece of trivia associated with the person. Sandstein 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is viable and within reason & rules; right under the "Selected honors and awards" section maybe. I would also redirect The Gore Effect directly to said section.--NortyNort (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather keep this as a separate page; it's a term that people are likely to search for on their own, thus it's useful to have an article of its own for this topic, even if the page ends up being relatively small. Cazort (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The German de:Gore-Effekt article is trash, frankly. Look at the sources - WorldNetDaily, National Review Online's blog, self-published article at The Examiner, blogs. The fact that you think this is a model to follow does not give me any confidence about your judgement of what makes a good article. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. You are omitting Die Zeit as a reasonable source and trying to ridicule various decisions of a major WP community. The article in question was mentioned on the German main page and got hitrates aroun 40.000. So far as now not any QS brick or further attempts to erase it. I assume the article is a possible model since it withstood various censoring attempts. yes. Best regards. --Polentario (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Die Zeit is a very reputable source. The article you are referring to is an opinion piece. My German isn't the greatest, but the first three paragraps are about him being out of milk, complaining that his kid sleeps till, noon, not having any food in the fridge, and his kid not reading a note he left on it. Movementarian (Talk) 14:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And? You can be sure that the german climatistic gang jumped on the article like a duck on a June bug! However the community was able and willing to read further. Martenstein
starts with a deliberation about a psycholocal rule - when people hate a certain aspect in others, its often as well an aspect of their own personality. --Polentario (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they are. Remember, this article does not purport to be scientific or factual.
Statements of opinion
Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. These are reliable sources, depending on context, but when using them, it is better to attribute the material in the text to the author.
Yes, if you were writing an article about John Doe and you wanted to show that he thought something was important you could use an op-ed piece where said something was important. If you wanted to show varying opinions on a notable topic, then sure. You can't use an op-ed piece to show notability. At least that is how I read things. Movementarian (Talk) 23:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above where you already presented this article on 11:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC). Read the responses given during the subsequent half hour. Yopienso (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Polentario, meaning no disrespect at all, is English a second language for you? Many of your edits both here and in the article/talk can be difficult to comprehend or are, IMHO, not very well composed. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had guessed he was not a native English speaker. I, personally, don't edit at the German WP because there's a language barrier. Şłџğģő18:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, his English is a farsight better than my German, but I'm not sure he's quite up to editing English article content. That being said, I'll feel less restrained in the future editing his contributions there. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Etiquette: "Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings, and probably have other people in the world who love them. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.". Discussing others ability to edit main space articles like this is not proper. I got the same kind of criticism (yes I'm not an native English speaker), and can do mistakes. I've been on Wikipedia for over five years, and edited extensively over the last three years, without any trouble before running into this area. So please don't question his ability to edit. Iff you spot a problem with the users contributions please try to fix the problem. Nsaa (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No disrespect, but this article makes us look stupid. How often does Gore speak, every other day? And we're going to put together different statements by pundits who highlight days when the weather was cold, to "let the reader decide"? I see no substance here for us to create a legitimate article. A sentence or two could easily be merged to Al Gore and the environment. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as unencyclopaedic. Twin usage referred to highlights how meaningless this concept is as an overall encyclopaedia. WP is not a battleground. Delete this and let's write serious articles. MikeHobday (talk) 17:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do any reliable sources actually provide some analysis of this claim? Even in the version of the article you link, all I see is a series of surface-level descriptions, at most which say that this is either a fun or stupid joke about coincidences with Gore speaking and cold weather. Nobody says what the joke means; although a series of coincidences is implied, we don't have anything approaching an analysis of whether even that is the case. Many of the claims are clearly exaggerated or inaccurate, but nobody has presented anything resembling an analysis of their accuracy. So where is the article? A claim with no analysis of either its accuracy or meaning in reliable sources does not generally call for an independent article. Mackan79 (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
analysis? AQFK mentions WP:RS, but I get the impression he's making a WP:N point, and the word "analysis" appears nowhere on that page. WP:N does talk about significant coverage, meaning a certain depth of detail. I think that there is sufficient depth of detail available from reliable sources for us to present readers with comprehensive coverage of this subject. The Politico article says what the joke means. The Toronto Globe & Mail published a definition. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, whether there is "significant coverage" to justify an independent article is the issue. The little piece in Politico says, "While there’s no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn’t warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say." So then it is a real claim according to that source, but still we have nothing about its accuracy, and indeed no evaluation (independent or otherwise) for us to write about. Why would that be an independent article? As many sources (and more reputable) say the "Gore effect" means something totally different, specifically his effect in popularizing concern over climate change and environmental issues. Mackan79 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well–sourced article referring to a term in mainstream use, regardless of whether it is pro–or anti–Gore. Wikipedia is where I would turn to if I came across some such a term in the editorial of a mainstream newspaper and I would be dismayed if there were no mention of it here. As with any potentially polemical article here, may require more vigilance by the Community, but that’s pretty much par for the course.--Technopat (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has numerous sources indicating that the "Gore Effect" is a notable satirical idea or joke used to portray Gore and other believers in global warming. The article does not portray the Gore Effect as being an actual hypothesis about the relationship between Al Gore speeches and the local weather. Those who think it is a stupid idea or joke should add additional sources, such as this Salon article, which portray the proponents of the Gore Effect negatively, rather than seeking deletion. --Metropolitan90(talk)06:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to any of these sources which explain that it a "satirical idea"? I agree it's intended to be humorous, but I'm not sure it is satire, or that any reliable sources have tried to analyze it as such. A simple joke seems to me a better description based on the scant reliable sources provided. Not to open a can of worms, but we don't have Al Gore invented the internet (see redirect from I invented the internet), even though a search on that seems to return many more hits than one on this (try "Gore 'invented the internet'"). Note also one of my favorite policy statements, from WP:NPOV: "The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article" (pipelink added). Mackan79 (talk) 08:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say so. And given that Martenstein writes als Gore bei einer Anti-Erwärmungs-Klimakonferenz in Peru weilte, gab es dort sogar Kältetote. Im Mai. ("when Gore was at an anti-warming conference in Peru, people froze to death. In Mai.") you can rest assured that it's all ironic. First, Peru is one tropical country with elevations so high that it has significant regions with cold all-year-round climate, and secondly, its completely (if barely) south of the equator, so there is no expectation that May is a particularly mild months. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Hmm and who cares about Perus climate here? Its an ironic Gloss about a running gag being repeated far beyound the US blogosphere, not about the one and only science. 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Polentario (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seit einiger Zeit spricht man deshalb in der Welt der Wissenschaft vom "Gore-Effekt", welcher eine starke, plötzliche, lokal begrenzte Abkühlung des Klimas bewirkt, sobald der Erwärmungsprophet Al Gore in der Nähe ist. Den Begriff "Gore-Effekt" verwendet man halb ironisch, aber nicht ganz ironisch, denn auffällig ist es ja schon. 2:0, as far as I remember. Polentario (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The quote you provide does not support the claim you made ("since the coincidences happen too often"). I assume you talk about Germany vs. Australia? That's only at half time - not much of a task for your memory... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Youre starting to play foul. Translation service: For some time the world science speaks about the Gore effect, which causes a strong local climatic cooling as often as Warmers Prophet Al Gore is around. The expression Gore-effect is to be used half ironcally, not completely ironic, since it (the effect, my addendum) is a striking one. 4:0 to correct your stats btw. I mean its like the guy from the CNN weather stuff statet - its a sort of runnung gag about al Gore with world wide references. So keep (the ball) 21:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume youre perfect, Mr Schulz. About which statement are we talking now? Your repeated foul play here is a good example of xomeone caught in an ideology and assuming the world has to play accordingly. The World as Will and Representation as example :) end of message. Polentario (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This blog says, "In a standout editorial published in Wednesday’s Washington Times, the satirical case is made for the so-called “Gore Effect”—a curious phenomenon that reveals more about the “Global Warming” weather-alarmists than the weather itself." And this blog says, "It’s hard to know how to respond to the Gore Effect – the “phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming.” On the one hand, it can be used as a satirical device." Granted, these are blogs, not mainstream newspapers, but they do specifically refer to the Gore Effect as a satirical idea. --Metropolitan90(talk)16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These blogs aren't any more reliable than we are. We shouldn't have articles on political satire reflexively, regardless of whether there is an NPOV article to be written. This question comes up all the time with memes of this sort, so what is our standard for significant coverage? Personally I don't think "it's been mentioned a few times in semi-reliable sources" should be the one. If we have an article on this meaning of this term, then there is no argument against having another article on "Gore effect" as Gore's impact on the public response to climate change.[48][49][50][51][52] Unfortunately it would have to be an entirely different article since no sources discuss them together. So what do we say, Gore effect (sometimes satirical joke) and Gore effect (impact on public response to climate change)? Call me crazy for suggesting Al Gore and the environment. Mackan79 (talk) 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the text needs to be rewritten so it's fully supported by the WP:RS sources given (especially op-eds used should be "attribute the material in the text to the author"), but the term has been used significantly by mainstream media, and got in dept coverage as shown above by many other users. Nsaa (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Start reading the first reference given in the article, Lovely_2008-11-25_Politico, and it should give you an answer (as said over and over again in the discussions above as far as I've seen. I should although have written Significant coverage and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. as stated in WP:GNG, not in dept coverage to be perfectly clear. Nsaa (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment by Matthew Drabik in that AfD [53] contains the particularly enlightening "the Gore Effect is a term of mockery," we can just skip right over whether we have a source for "satire" and go right to the horses mouth for the intention. WP:BLP / WP:ATTACKActive Banana (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Active Banana, please note that my entry was deleted and I did not write the one under discussion, therefore your reference to me is moot. Also, satire usually includes mockery. If I were to say "Al Gore knows Global Warming isn't true and is lying to increase the value of his green technology investments" that would be an attack. Using humor to point out that real world events (both metrological and climatological) undermine Al Gore's arguments is not an attack.Matthew Drabik (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have been happy to nominate this as delete except that when I tried a google search I found several reliable sources mentioning the term, so it deserves an article. This article has also been taken to the BLP board and I would agree that any BLP violations should be swiftly removed, but the article is not about Gore, it is about an effect seen amongst other people, so there is definitely scope to have an article, even if it is shorter than current. Weakopedia (talk) 09:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This political/satircal term and its meaning have been thoroughly noted in reliable sources. BLP worries which creep in can be handled easily, as they are elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add these links to articles on the Gore Effect in Spanish and in Italian. They are mere blogs and do not qualify as RS; I offer them to show this joke is not told only in the USA. (Polentario has given a German link above.) And here's one from CNN: "MARCIANO: It's the Al Gore effect. I mean that - that's - in the weather community, we kind of joke about it. It's just a bad timing. Every time there's some big weather climate conference, there seems to be a cold outbreak. But, globally, we are still warming. We'll see how it pans out for - for 2010. But globally, temperatures, believe it or not, are still above average." (That's ROB MARCIANO, AMS METEOROLOGIST.) Yopienso (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Marciano quote from CNN is currently in the fourth paragraph of the article. I don't think there should be a WP:RS problem with adding citations to blogs for usage -- in fact, I think that's ultimately necessary to be able to cover the history of usage and therefore cover the subject comprehensively -- but a few editors shot down that idea on the talk page. But it's good to know that this has traveled around the world. I suppose doing internet searches for "Gore Effect", replacing "Effect" with various translations of the word would get some interesting results. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or do you really want to delete an article which already was kept in the German WP's AfD debate? :- However, the term Gore effect already is influencig "green" politics around the world, e.g in Australia. If you like it nor not, wether if it's true or not, the issue is widely discussed, [54] or [55]; What so far many missedis the coincidency (?) with the term gofe effect in cinema and comics, see here, here and here. --Matthiasb (talk) 11:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matthiasb, you are talking about a different meaning of the term. The AfD is about the use of "the Gore Effect" to describe unusually cold weather coinciding with a global warming presentation by Al Gore. - Pointillist (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'effect' itself is as unscientific as the 'TV repairman syndrome' is untechnological. (Remember TV repairmen? Best picture you ever got was when one stopped outside your house with your address at the top of his list...) But... It's rather better referenced. Not attack - I could see Gore even using it. A modern reversal of the Pathetic Fallacy. Neologism, maybe. So was 'quiz' once. And wiki... Once again, better sourced than the usual neologisms we get, made up three nights before by two well-oiled students and today claimed to be widespread across California, Maine and Bhutan. Peridon (talk) 18:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per many above. Sourcing is plenty adequate for notability. Synthesis by others reported elsewhere is fine. Urban Dictionary origin is fine, since it's now clear that usage is RS'ed to mainstream. BLP doesn't apply because 1) it's sourced, 2) it's not contentious, and 3) it's not an attack. The number of editors arguing on various rationales that it should be deleted is concerning, because none of the rationales advanced above hold up to any policy-based scrutiny whatsoever. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep. I can understand that the term might look suspicious and unencyclopedic at first glance, but the sourcing seems to be sufficient and even the international press is using the term occasionally, so I see no convincing reason why there shouldn't be a WP entry.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Various arguments above refer to Google hits. Please note that mere Google hits are somewhat meaningless as the counting is not accurate due "gore effect" having other meanings as well but more importantly to establish notability of WP articles only reputable sources matter and the number of Goggle hits gives no information on that. If you want to get a vague idea regarding reputable sources at least try to use Google books or Google scholar instead of a Google websearch.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody disagree with you on that "Google hits" is not enough to establish a notability per WP:N, but where do you see this? Last I checked the ref.section it contained some 30 wp:rs sources … Nsaa (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: It contains 30 references - whether they are reliable in this context or not, is quite another cup of tea. [i haven't done a count - but the significant majority of references are editorials/opinion articles/blogs ]--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see from the comment above i agree that the term might have enough reputable sources to establish notability. My comment was referring to various Google hits comparison further up, which are not suited to establish notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this has to do with the keep/delete debate. I Agree with you that Google count is not a way to establish WP:NOTABILITY. I've not seem that kind of argument (maybe I've not read the discussion good enough, but the overall argument is not moved by this argument either way and that was my point). @Kim D. Petersen: You are correctly saying that many of the sources are opt.eds. But we don't need to take the WP:RS discussion about them. I think we all agree on that we know that editorial can be used as WP:RS depending on what to source (as repeated over and over in this and a lot of other discussion I and Kim has been in.). Nsaa (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further up people argued for keep/notability by comparing the Googgle Hits of this article with the Google hits of other apparently notable articles (such as Bushism for instance). Since such arguments seem to be creeping up in this and similar discussions again and again, I was just pointing out that they are not valid.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fourth convenience break
Delete a poor joke, no matter how many times repeated in reliable sources, does not make for a coherent encyclopedia article. Dlabtot (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP doesn't rely on any editor's opinion, such as Dlabtot's that this is a poor joke, but on WP:VERIFY:
:::"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
What does truth have to do with it? It certainly has nothing to do with what I said. Most jokes have an perceived element of truth anyway, at least the funny ones. However, Wikipedia is not a compendium of jokes. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. See WP:NOTE: "On Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." We've established with many sources that this joke is notable. Maybe not as notable as Why did the chicken cross the road, but notable enough to include. Yopienso (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems this article has better sourcing than most of the articles in Category:Jokes, including Why did the chicken cross the road, which we all know just off the top of our heads must be more notable. I think this article is quite coherent. The article tells us what it means, what has been said about it, and something about its history. That's more than we have for quite a few of our 3.3 million articles. It wouldn't surprise me if we have a million articles in worse shape than this one. No exaggeration. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone finds and adds a reliable source or two which states that the Chicken crossing riddle is actually a satirical comment criticizing the theory of human-caused global warming, then I think we could expect that article to get the same treatement that this one is getting. Since that probably won't happen, the Chicken article will likely be left in peace for the time being. Cla68 (talk) 06:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually among many other things WP is or can be a "compendium" of particularly well known jokes as well, after all we collect the " knowledge of the world". While it is true that an arbitrary collection of jokes belongs to Wikisource or Wikibooks and the articles on arbitrary words belong to wiktionary, WP nevertheless does cover special vocabulary, cultural or language phenomenons (including famous/well known jokes with their background), etymological aspects. The Gore-effect could be seen as such and hence possibly be covered, provided the sources establish that it is a notable case.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources cited in the article and by others above show just enough significant reliable coverage to justify inclusion. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a 'joke', it's a partisan attack that originates with opponents of Gore re politics and his views on Global warming. Jack Merridew17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Jack Merridew The article in question, The Gore Effect, quotes CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano but does not include his description of the "Gore Effect" as a joke among weathermen. Here it is:
MARCIANO: It's the Al Gore effect. I mean that - that's - in the weather community, we kind of joke about it. It's just a bad timing. Every time there's some big weather climate conference, there seems to be a cold outbreak. But, globally, we are still warming. We'll see how it pans out for - for 2010. But globally, temperatures, believe it or not, are still above average.
You see he makes a point that it's a joke, and goes on to affirm the globe is still warming. No climate denier, no Gore attacker. (An example of a non-attack joke: WP's article on Polish jokes does not constitute an ethnic attack.)
If there's an administrator watching this page, it looks like I either took a sock puppet's bait or we have one way-too-cute editor here. Click on both "Jack Merridew" links above and then google him. --Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cutie, for checking in. Since you like jokes so much, you should be very happy about the "Gore Effect" being in WP. I'm a dour old fussbudget whose face cracks every time she smiles. (Some would call those lines wrinkles--little do they know about crackleware. Or maybe I'm crazed. Not me; my face. :P) xoxo --Yopienso (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet none of the nonpartisan, third-party sources discuss this even so far as to address whether the joke has any basis in reality or is purely a fabrication. And perhaps there should be a higher standard for poorly sourced political neologisms that are just perhaps based on attempting to demean living people, where another article could easily address the same material in context. Mackan79 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The CNN source doesn't fit your description, nor Politico. The New England News Channel source doesn't look like it has anything malicious in it. I'm unconvinced this satirical meme attempts to demean Gore, although some who scoff at him use it. There's too much good information to merge. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought this was a very interesting take on popular culture and science. Great relevance...this is the kind of article Wikipedia is all about.BryantLee (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [Note: this user was subsequently indef'd as a sock of Scibaby William M. Connolley (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2010 (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.
