Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete Nakon  05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Gore effect

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A neologism created by a blogger. There is no evidence that the term has has any currency outside blogs or columns authored by the blogger. The article contains large chunks of OR that if removed would leave little content altogther. At the best, perhaps a merge to Tim Blair, but I dont think it is even notable enough for that. Mattinbgn\talk 11:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources, a non-notable-neologism. -mattbuck 11:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gore Effect has a definition in the Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Gore+Effect

It has an entry in "The New Climate Almanac" at the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070216.wclimatealmanac/BNStory/ClimateChange/home

It has been mentioned in the blog of a columnist at the Sydney Herald Sun http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/al_gore_does_it_again_preaches_warming_brings_cold/

It was discussed in the blog for Scientific American http://science-community.sciam.com/thread.jspa?threadID=300004226

These citations are in addition to the numerous entries on various "right-wing" blogs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Drabik (talk • contribs) 16:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per sources provided by Matthew Drabik. LaMenta3 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The Urban Dictionary is almost the definition of an unreliable source. The others listed above are nearly all blogs. Blogs are not reliable sources either. -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, but the multiple uses at least show prolificness. I should probably have been more specific. I'm weak on the position of keep because the sources demonstrate use outside of the area you claim it is confined to, but aren't themselves necessarily reliable in whatever else they present. LaMenta3 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree, NN neologism. Torc2 (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable neologism. The claim that the term was "popularized by Australian blogger Tim Blair" only has posts on Blair's blog as a reference, which fails WP:V as this obviously isn't an indepedended source. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Tim Blair's blog is not a WP:RS, whether published in a newspaper of record or not. The whole thing is almost a case of WP:NFT. Orderinchaos 17:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I can see which way the concensus is forming. C'est la vie.  As for unreliable sources, the Gore Effect is a term of mockery, not a scientific observation.  As for non-notable, in addition to the references above, it has been discussed on the Rush Limbaugh show (20 million listeners at any given time) and has several hundred right-wing blog entries listed in Google.  Earthday is coming and it is very likely that more observations of the Gore Effect will be noted.  If this entry is deleted, I might try again later.  Matthew Drabik (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.