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. Randykitty (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Effect[edit]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:ONEEVENT issues. Back in the climate dustups of 2009, people were convinced this was a notable term. It is not. It is not used as a universal term and is basically a WP:NEOLOGISM as employed by various advocacy groups, sometimes meaning starkly different things. We're not urban dictionary, and WP:IINFO certainly should apply here. I call shenanigans and ask for a removal of this article which is an artifact to Wikipedia controversies (WP:ARBCC) more than anything else. jps (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, this is actually the fifth time this article has been nominated for deletion, the links are on the talk page, the last one was a keep. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I wish I hadn't seen this, but I did and feel compelled to vote. Delete after much consideration. Yes, it's unquestionably reliably sourced.... to a bunch of fluff pieces. Only one of which is really about the Gore effect (Politico). Everything else uses that word, but ascribes different meaning to it. Mostly it's just used as a proto-clickbait headline for anything about Al Gore. As such, combining it all together doesn't really make sense. Sailsbystars (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as before. This isn't a coherent topic - it's cobbled together from a number of different articles about different things that happen to use the same phrase. It's classic WP:SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 03:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my statement about SYNTH, the article opens by saying "The Gore Effect is a term used with various meanings..." We don't write articles about phrases used in a variety of different ways. We don't cobble together disparate bits of unrelated information. Guettarda (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this seems to be a coatrack attempting to give "equal validity" to a fringe meme, strung together from a combination of commentary in questionable sources, some mainstream discussion giving passing mention of fringe views. and some discussion of unrelated topics using the same phrase. . . dave souza, talk 05:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wikipedia:I_just_don't_like_it is no base for deletion. The use of "Gore effect" as in scientific ("serious") circumstances, as in the past for Gores effect on green investments (or with Clive Palmers helping carbon-dusted-hand nowadays) makes clear that there is interest to convert the meme into something more Gore-friendly, but without much success. There are much more (international) references as the RfD suggests AND there is ongoing interest AND use of that meme till today. Its a slur, sure, but one valid mentioning and explaining. Its a Cute Cat and insofar relevant, recent sources just have been added. I expect wikipedia to do its duty on that. Serten (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I made a minor change to the lead with the aim to place the use the term in a historical context but the change was undone without explanation. I think it is fair to say that a certain term was used historically with a number of potential meanings. Gregkaye (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was flat out SYNTH, as is the whole of the current article. Keep !Votes really need to address the SYNTH issue. I was originally leaning towards voting keep, but after looking at the various sources I could not overcome the synth argument in my mind. (and also the failing of GNG... only one reliable source about the gore effect the rest just use it in the headline for whatever, hence how most of the article is SYNTH as our article interprets what the source authors meant it to mean.) I'd be persuaded to vote keep IF someone could find an article with an overview and discussion of the evolution of the meaning of "Gore effect." Instead, our current article infers the evolution of the term which as I've said it blatant SYNTH. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Synth is a weak form of OR, SYNTH_is_not_a_catch-all and does not apply here. It would if somebody constructed the article from Gores speech assignations and related those to local weather reports. Thats not the case with any of the sources in question. The fact that some of the sources mention and refer to the Gore effect in titles, as defined otherwise, is an indication of notability, not the contrary as purported. Furthermore the alleged lack of "notable sources" leave out e.g. the small chapter about the effect in the quite successful book of Daniel Rettig et al (Rettig is senior editor at Wirtschaftswoche) and as well the Article of Harald Martenstein. Not counting the Germans in does neither work in WP nor in the FIFA world cup. Serten (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an excellent example of a topic that belongs in an encyclopedia. Many, many articles use the term, but many of the articles use the term with a limited explanation of the term, apparently assuming that the reader knows the term. An interested reader is likely to turn to Wikipedia to see more about the term. I am unclear why we would want to keep them uninformed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1 @ S Philbrick - I just refered to the lack of understanding concerning Tacit knowledge in the WP:OR disk page. [1] which applies here as well. Serten (talk) 16:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The phrase has proven worthy of discussion in secondary reliable sources over a span of years; there is enough material there for the topic to easily meet WP:GNG. The phrase has progressed beyond a neologism to part of the culture of the climate debates and the sources already in the article show there is enough discussion to form a reasonable short article on the topic. I don't see a lot of synth in the article. Summarizing and giving examples of secondary sources' interpretation and reception of the phrase is what we should be doing. If there is material that does synthesize a new assertion, then it should be removed--but this is a simple matter of editing, not deletion. A notable topic and a modest article without major problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ONEEVENT is completely meaningless here. There is nor was just a single event in question, but a multitude of similar events being summarized under the term and mentioned in the sources. Maybe the german WP did have less a problem with the term (it was RFDed once but never deleted), since seemingly unrelated but "meaningful" series of coincidences have been - in German - scholarly described by C.G.Jung under the term Synchronicity (a famous predecessor of the effect in question see Pauli effect). I personally assume that these sorts of Tacit knowledge play a major role in WP, but are completely ignored by the official set of rules. I agree with some of the issues raised about the intro and have corrected these. The main meaning is the antigorean slur / the webmeme, not any praise about Gores positive impact on humanity via green investment activities. Serten (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC) PS.:[reply]
• Keep Being a neologism is not a reason to delete. In fact, we have an entire Category:Political neologisms devoted to neologisms. The only thing that really matters here is whether the topic meets the WP:GNG guidelines. Given that the article cites 17 different reliable sources, I think it's obvious that it does. And if not, here are a few more sources that the article doesn't currently cite.[2][3][4][5][6] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Come on - lighten up - it's funny. Could be cited as a good example of Murphy's Law. More examples needed.Fenton Robb (talk) 10:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I !voted for Merge last time, but the article has been improved enough to just about tip it over the line. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The term is notable and the article well-sourced. Yopienso (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (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.