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. As pointed out by Kim D. Petersen, of the article's two references, one calls the other a hoax. SilkTork *^YES! 21:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect[edit]

Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism. This has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. (A good example of selection bias.) Atmoz (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Largely unsourced neologism, used only in those sources. (Although I thought "gore effect" was what happened after watching Happy Tree Friends.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Cute, but it is a non-notable neologism. Maybe in a few years it will gain traction, but we work in the now, and now it isn't notable. Back into the lock-box. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. The article already has two sources written in detail about the topic. Here is another independent one, which is international to boot: [1]. These are all articles, not op-eds, if you want to include op-eds in high-profile papers then there are more articles. I think the arguments that the term is non-notable based on not enough coverage in reliable sources is not a strong argument in this case. A stronger ground to delete the page would be that searching for "Gore Effect" also yields a lot of coverage of other "effects". I'd be open to discussing that but I think the assertions that this is an "unsourced neologism" are vacuous. Cazort (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be sourceable (sure looks like it), but that doesn't defeat WP:Avoid neologisms. Note that WP:Avoid neologisms states the following:

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.'

An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy)."

You appear to be asserting that the article you linked to above is about the "Gore Effect" as a term. At first glance that might appear to be the case, but after reading the article, I would tend to disagree. Same with the articles linked from the article itself. I believe the article to about the ironic events themselves, not the term coined to describe them. Stated another way, I believe these articles are establishing the neologism, not discussing its existance as a term/phrase. As such, they would not defeat WP:Avoid neologisms as secondary source coverage, but would rather be primary sources. Since you turned up those sources it is a MUCH closer call, but I still support deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see what you are saying. You are correct about the source I provided. However, this source: [2] appears to be written about the gore effect in detail. The other article cited on the page simply uses the term. That gives only one source written about it in detail (are there more?). I am changing my recommendation to a weak keep. Cazort (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Politico source is very similar to the Herald-Sun article, and although the wording sets out a stronger role of the term than in the HS article, I think it is still a primary source document, rather than a secondary source. This one ended up being a lot more technical than I originally expected. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. Basically agree with Cazort, but I see this is more technical than I first thought. References certainly need improving if it survives. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a pair of articles in the Washington Times [3] and the Telegraph [4] which assume that the Gore effect is a known term. However I have also turned up evidence of an earlier meaning [5] which confuses matters slightly, and the references I could turn up in academic papers mostly seem to use that meaning. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But aren't those also primary sources, sources which use or establish the term, but do not discuss it specifically AS a term? The secondary meaning weakens the case for keeping the article, because it shows the term isn't as strongly established as originally thought. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles assume that the meaning of the term is well established, at least in certain circles, raising the question of whether it really is still a neologism. But my discovery of other competing meanings is indeed weakening my case considerably. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a pointless neologism with no encyclopedic content. Existence of a neologism doesn't mean it gets its own article. DreamGuy (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a neologism - but i'm not even certain that it is a neologism. The article cites exactly one usage on Politico, and an article that cites Politico as nonsense.... Hmmm. If Politico is correct, then there should be loads of possible references ... but none are available in the article? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2009 (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.