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

The result of the discussion was no consensus. @harej 00:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect[edit]

See discussion here. Two other pages created at the same time, which I deleted per WP:CSD#G10, figured into this decision: Algorerithm and File:Thegoreeffect.jpg (admins only, sorry). - Dank (push to talk) 16:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A permalink to the discussion where the editor claimed that other admins backed them up is here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the part with a claim that "other admins backed them up". Are you sure this is the right link? Also, the Algorerithm page was created by a different user over a week later, so it seems to have no bearing on this discussion. (The picture is from Marknutley, and I agree entirely with its deletion.) --RL0919 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the right link to the discussion; the statement is at User_talk:Dank#Why_did_i_not_get_a_chance_to_object_to_this.3F. And I should have been more careful, I didn't mean to imply that all 3 pages were created by the same editor (only two were) or at the same instant; I meant that the other recently-created attack page affected my decision. Political name-calling tends to come in waves ... maybe it happens when pundits start rabble-rousing, I don't know, but seeing several at once helps me recognize it for what it is. - Dank (push to talk) 19:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the bit about admins makes sense with the additional context of the other discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rewrite quickly or delete As it stands now, the draft presupposes an actual "phenomenon" - in other words, Al Gore speaking somewhere causes lower temperatures. This would be a massive and unprecidented leap... somewhere... in our understanding of science, and would require extraordinary proof. Furthermore, the draft is written as a polemic - "Al Gore has become the commander-in-chief for those warning about the dangers of global warming," "Since that fateful day" and so on. Unless the article is quickly rewritten to make it clear that there is something - anything - salvagable from it, including at least one link to confirmation bias, it needs to go. There might be an article in there somewhere describing how some sceptics of anthropogenic global warming attempt to mock Al Gore by tracking his travels and noting when he's somewhere that's more cold than usual, but unless someone is actually going to do the legwork, all that userspace page is right now is a poorly written, poorly sourced polemic. Hipocrite (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I've rewritten it. I note that the goal of inserting a funny image of Al Gore in the snow is the primary focus of multiple other contributors. As such, it's clear that the page was intended as an attack page. Hipocrite (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to be exceptionally poorly sourced and the content falls under biographies of living persons policy. That alone raises warning flags. As the sole purpose appears to be to disparage the principal subject, I propose that it once again be deleted as an attack page (CSD G10). --TS 16:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think that Mark should be given a reasonable amount of time to clean up the article and address any concerns which were raised at the previous deletion discussion as KDP suggested in the above linked discussion. The article is in user space and I think Dank added the NOINDEX so there is little possibility of this being visible to anyone other than people looking through Mark's user space. --GoRight (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is a recreated version of an article speedily deleted on 19 December 2009 as a hoax (The Gore Effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)). It serves no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and the intention of its creator, Marknutley (talk · contribs), is clearly to denigrate the subject; this can be seen clearly from the images that he uploaded to illustrate the page, File:Gore-freezing.jpg and a previous version of the same file at [1], which have been taken from a blog. This is undoubtedly an attack page and should be speedily deleted as such, along with the images. It cannot be "cleaned up" as it's fundamentally unencyclopedic. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note two previous AfDs of this topic at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect. (Both links from Dan's permalink to discussion above.)  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in summary it's been AFD'd twice, speedily deleted twice and restored so that we can discuss it here. Why exactly is the latter step necessary? -- ChrisO (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did G10 initially, but when it appeared the speedy itself might become part of the drama, I chose MfD instead. It seems to lead to more drama if it's done as a speedy when there are subtle points that are flying over the heads of good-faith contributors. As a side benefit, a wider discussion helps to make the point that G10 (aka WP:ATTACK) has subtleties that not everyone is catching. The harm is minimal; Al Gore is a very public figure, and the page is noindex'd anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I suppose so, though I think it would have been simpler just to have pointed to DRV. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous AFD's: author appears to have no understanding of why the previous AFD's passed The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming. is, scientifically, twaddle (and in reply to BozMo: it is so badly twaddle that it is unsaveable) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry I just don't agree we are that paternalistic in a users own space. You are allowed to prepare articles on people who don't yet make notability in case they do. It is possible for a joke to become so famous that it becomes eligible. This is an extraordinary degree of intervention in the users own space. --BozMo talk 16:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing the user can do qua Wikipedian will make this remotely acceptable as an article. If it ever becomes acceptable as a topic, it would still be completely different, being about the phenomenon of the joke, and not the series of coincidences. Rd232 ^talk 16:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • BozMo, this isn't about "people who don't yet make notability". It's an attack page against someone who is highly notable already. BLP applies in userspace too, you know. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this was an article *about* the Gore effect (clearly stating that scientifically the effect itself is spurious and can't exist) then taht might be OK. But it isn't. It is an article that pretends the effect itself is real William M. Connolley (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WHERE is the attack? Suggesting that someone is plagued by bad weather isn't an attack, unless you have very strange religious beliefs? --BozMo talk 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The intent is clearly satirical - " Al Gore has become the commander-in-chief for those warning about the dangers of global warming..." It is a perpetuation of the alleged pop culture phenomenon, not a document of it. Rd232 ^talk 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • My reading of it is that it is the kind of thing which Gore himself might make a joke about. If he does, is that non coverable? --BozMo talk 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's actually a subtle point: WP:CSD#G10, unlike most of the other speedy criteria, doesn't strictly depend on the words on the page, it also depends on reasonable assumptions about the intent and the effect, and it also depends on how much contorting you'd have to do to ever wind up with an encyclopedic page. The page title, which has popped up on 4 different deleted pages already, carries the implication that Gore causes bad weather wherever he goes; this illustrates why page titles are specifically mentioned at WP:CSD#G10 and why they tend to weigh heavily in speedy deletion decisions; no amount of editing is like to fix the impression that the point of the page is disparagement and nothing else. Please see also the discussion at User_talk:Dank#User_space_page_deletion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Another subtle point is that the defense "I didn't intend an attack" isn't bulletproof (although it helps). A G11 spam page can still be speedied as a spam page even if you didn't intend it to be irredeemably promotional if you're copying the words of someone who did intend it that way; likewise, repeating someone else's name-calling can be an attack, even if you personally didn't intend it that way. It's a judgment call when the name-calling becomes so prevalent that we hold our noses and go ahead and have a page on the topic (even if it stills sounds like adolescent name-calling to us.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Having had a look at File:Thegoreeffect.jpg, I confess I have a hard time buying an "I didn't intend an attack" defense, even if I'm willing to allow for humour instead of malice. MLauba (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's even clearer when you look at this earlier version of the same file. Incidentally, the uploader shouldn't be pinching pics off blogs. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep: questionable faith misguided nomination. I am sorry guys but this is in the users own space as a working draft. The draft article has been created in the user's own space with a view to eventually having a mainspace article. It might make main space if it can find enough references. It includes a returned copy of the article which was deleted (which I returned to him as an admin). There is nothing whatsoever to qualify this as an MfD and several other admins are aware of it. --BozMo talk 16:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following, in what sense was this not a good faith MfD nomination? Have you read my talk page? - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow close would be highly appropriate for this bit of irretrievable nonsense. (Apply salt to the snow if necessary.) Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Poor media joke, going against BLP and unsalvageable even with improved sources. Could possibly appear as one sentence in a suitable context elsewhere on wikipedia, but not as a separate article, even in user space. Mathsci (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy and strong delete as an attack page per G10, so tagged. – ukexpat (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as an attack page per G10. Sole Soul (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is NOT an attack page! I think some are perhaps misunderstanding what this is. Many Reliable sources have referred to it as a somewhat humorous, ironic coincidence relating to Gore's involvement in the climate debate and several cold weather events. I think there is enough reliable coverage to allow this to develop in userspace for possible future inclusion as an article. ATren (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck "Many" above, because on closer examination, several of the earlier sources refer to the "Gore effect" as something else. In any case, I did find references in the Washington Times, Salon, NY Daily News, and a few Australian news sources. So I think the sourcing is probably sufficient for a short article. ATren (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy Delete G10, per WP:BLP. MLauba (talk) 17:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This material is deeply unencyclopedic. Even if one assumes that this "effect" is a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work, the current article would need to be torn down and completely rewritten to achieve anything remotely appropriate for articlespace. Therefore, I don't see a rationale to keep it as a "work in progress", nor do I see any sign that the authors have attempted to address the concerns raised at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect. I suppose some people might consider it allowable as a userspace polemic (though I think it fails WP:UP#NOT even in that capacity). MastCell ^Talk 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just toned down some of the over-the-top claims, i.e. anything that would imply actual correlation (which would be ridiculous). I think it reads much better now, focusing on the coincidence aspect of it. ATren (talk) 17:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should not have to. the article was only a lift of news stories like [2]. Are we not allowed to take in drafts from published sources into userspace to work on as sources. this has gone mad.--BozMo talk 17:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Come on - it's the New York Daily News. Look at their coverage; does it seem like an appropriate basis for an encyclopedic treatment in a serious, respectable reference work? This is clearly an instance where entertainment value has taken precedence over news value, and that's a distinction we should make. Glancing at other Daily News coverage, should we also have an article on 2009 Casey Johnson canine ownership controversy ([3])? MastCell ^Talk 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • We do, but it's in the right year - 2010 Casey Johnson canine ownership controversy. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • Son of a... MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • So what, its a draft in user space with a possible good faith intent and no personal attack. So whether or not it has much chance of going anywhere is completely beside the point. --BozMo talk 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Honestly, if it's going to be actively edited with the goal of making it encyclopedic, I don't see a lot of harm in giving in a couple of weeks and then revisiting it, with the understanding that if no real progress has been made it should be deleted per WP:UP#COPIES. My wariness stems from a) the fact that this topic is, at best, facetious and barely newsworthy even on a slow day and thus unlikely to have any encyclopedic significance, and b) we should really be thinking about limiting climate-change battlefields rather than enabling their proliferation. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an illustrating of just how ludicrous the thing (still) is, the Register reference doesn't even mention Gore. Rd232 ^talk 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a draft in user space for goodness sake. You are allowed to leave ends untied up--BozMo talk 17:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "ends untied"? There are 6 references, all added by the user (not from the original, resurrected article). Two don't even mention Gore (Register, Salt lake Tribune), and one is a minor blog entry, albeit on a newspaper site (not a proper article though). Also some of the text is a copyvio from the Washington Times editorial [4] (reliable sourcing, that). Bottom line, for an article on a pop culture phenomenon, there needs to actually be one. For a userspace draft on one, there needs to be an attempt to document it, not justify it. Rd232 ^talk 18:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[editconflict]

• Rd232 You say some of the links do not even mention gore, their headlines do and the whole point of the phrase is that when people gather to talk/protest about global warming the weather turns bad, hence The Gore Effect :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  "the whole point..." sums up what's wrong here: it's an attempt to manufacture a point, not to document one. The phrase is propaganda, and until the propaganda is clearly notable, there is no reason to facilitate its dissemination - quite the opposite. Rd232 ^talk 20:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • Moreover, eventualism is not acceptable where BLPs are concerned. If a page is unacceptable, as this one is, it can't stay around until someone makes it acceptable. And in this case the basic concept of the page is so flawed - as the previous AfDs determined - that it is never going to be acceptable. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know where you are getting the notion that previous AFDs determined this subject "is never going to be acceptable". Leaving aside the general notion that consensus can change, the concerns expressed by multiple commenters in the previous AFDs were that the subject was a neologism lacking notability and there were not sufficient reliable sources. These are both entirely curable if/when the subject gains sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --RL0919 (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Come on, MastCell, be fair. This term is in wide use and there are many encyclopedic aspects to the theme: it is a pop culture phenomenon, it is used in political commentary, it is used in political humor, etc. all of which can be expanded upon. --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry; I am trying to be fair, but I'm not seeing it, for the reasons I mentioned above. MastCell ^Talk 17:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As the editor who has been working on this i should like to point out it is not an attack page, this is an article about something funny which has slipped into modern vernacular, this article is no different to the article about Bushisms. Should it too be deleted? It is still a wip and i see a few guys are working on cleaning it up, i would ask not to delete until it is actually finished and then decide on the content. I did not think that working on something in your own userspace was wrong, i assumed you could work on an article in your userspace until such a time as you wanted to ask others to comment on it, which i did. Once comments had been made i would have worked further to imporove the article. thank you --mark nutley (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page is about things Bush said. If we're going to have an article on this, it would help a lot to have relevant quotes from Gore or Gore's people. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an important aspect here which needs to be mentioned. Parts of the (mostly American) right wing are seeking to discredit climate science by linking it with and ridiculing Al Gore personally. This is something that was mentioned by Paul Krugman in his New York Times column: "Gore hatred is more than personal. When National Review decided to name its anti-environmental blog Planet Gore, it was trying to discredit the message as well as the messenger." Not coincidentally, the previous speedily deleted version of this article was sourced to Planet Gore. This "Gore Effect" meme is not a "spontaneous" "pop culture" thing as Marknutley claims - it's being pushed by a specific political faction for a specific political goal. The attempts to add this material to Wikipedia are merely an effort to promote this campaign. Marknutley's uploading of attack images to accompany this attack article make his intentions perfectly clear. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Say what now? How can an image i made which just has gore with some snow on him be an attack image?

This phrase is not a right wing attack on anyone, it`s just a joke. Have you no sense of humor, stop seeing conspiracy's mate :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject of this userspace draft is a neologism that has at least some direct coverage (not just use) in reliable sources. Clearly the article should not suggest that this neologism refers to a scientifically established natural phenomenon, since it doesn't and not even its users seriously claim it does. But there is nothing inherently "unencyclopedic" about covering neologisms, jokes and other pop culture phenomenon. If sufficient reliable sources coverage can be found to create a viable article within the restrictions of WP:NEO, then not only could this be a userspace draft, it could be an actual article. Yes, articles on this subject have been deleted at AFD in the past, but one of the qualities of a neologism is that reliable sources coverage of it can increase rapidly in a relatively short time, so that a subject that was not at all notable in January 2008 could become notable by January 2010. As long as the page does not claim that Al Gore actually causes bad weather or engage in actual ridicule of him (as opposed to factual coverage of the use of the neologism), there is no BLP issue, and thus no reason the draft should not be left in place to see if a reliably sourced article on this subject can be developed. --RL0919 (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not a BLP issue as it in no way reflects on Gore as a person, nor on any biographical material, nor does it charge Gore with anything. [5] headline term in New York Daily News, hence in wide usage. Commented on in Australia "Herald Sun." [6]. As notability is not even required in userspce, this suggests the term might well have enough notability to be a mainspace article. [7] etc. ad nauseam. In any case, way insufficient reason to delete from userspace. BTW, no "actual phenomenon" is asserted - making that a straw issue. And the phenomenon is a version of Murphy's Law applied to Al Gore. Deleting versions of Murphy;s Law because of political concerns does no favor to Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Minor correction - as of the time of the nominaton, the draft stated "evidence has continued to mount suggesting a correlation between global warming activism and severely cold weather" and "The phenomenon that leads to unseasonably cold temperatures, driving rain, hail, or snow whenever Al Gore visits an area to discuss global warming." Hipocrite (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review the material found in Correlation does not imply causation. --GoRight (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please review the material found in The plural of anecdote is not data. Hipocrite (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that's not true in this case. Enough anecdotes surely could provide sufficient data to establish a correlation. --GoRight (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've come to find that the average Wikipedian would agree with you, though the average (or even below-average) scientist would not. Anyhow, since you're willing to accept anecdotal data as probative, how many pictures of melting glaciers or swimming polar bears will you need to accept anthropogenic climate change? :P MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, then the scientists would be wrong in this case. Anecdotes in this case are nothing more than individual data points. With a large enough random sampling thereof one certainly could make a case for a correlation. So, with respect to your question about melting glaciers and swimming polar bears, the answer would be a sufficient number and variety to form a statistically appropriate sample. Remember, however, that correlation says nothing about causation as I point out above. --GoRight (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes hipocrite you are correct, this is why i asked for others to look it over and point out what was wrong and how to correct any mistakes i had made. It was very much a wip and i was taking my time as i assumed as it was in a userspace i had plenty of time to work on it :( --mark nutley (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now. If this doesn't go somewhere in the next few months, should be revisited and deleted as a long term archive of deleted content. Gigs (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as laughable attack page. MikeHobday (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on the claims and counterclaims of BLP; I just re-read BLP and I don't see "name-calling" in BLP, but name-calling does result in speedy deletions every day per WP:ATTACK (i.e. G10). BLP is more concerned with defamation, and attaching someone's name to something unpleasant but fictional isn't defamatory, but if there isn't any encyclopedic content mixed in with the ridicule, it's still G10-worthy. Btw, do we need to discuss whether creating text or images that portray someone as a Sad Sack (someone who is comically portrayed as creating disaster wherever they go) is an act of ridicule and name-calling (at least by the sources, if not by the page creator)? I'm asking because I don't know; a fair amount of the grunt work of Wikipedia is done by young people and by older people with maybe a little mind-blindness, and not everyone gets this stuff. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture (now speedy deleted) served to make fun of Gore and is thus inappropriate. It would also be inappropriate to write an article in such a way that the article itself makes fun of Gore by making it seem as if bad weather really does follow him around. But it is entirely within bounds to use material from reliable sources showing that third parties have made fun of Gore and the neologism 'Gore effect' has become attached to this. The key is to factually summarize the subject rather than just repeating the joke. The version of the page when it was nominated didn't do that, so I can see how that would be taken badly. But that can be and has been fixed by editing; it does not require deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but the end doesn't justify the means; we don't want Wikipedia to be used as a club for children (or bloggers who act like children) to beat each other up with, at any point in the process. Every article that's speedied per G10 could in theory become a wonderful article some day; it might be hinting at some notable, sourceable truth, but if the ridicule is there and the sources and the credible claim of notability aren't, policy requires deletion rather than patience. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly the current page, with citations to four news outlets and a book, is more than "hinting", and its content is not an attack on anyone. We would be deleting the page that exists now because of the deficiencies of past versions, and there is not a good justification for that. --RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Has anyone shown how the topic meets any criterion for inclusion? To me, even if you put aside the BLP discussion, I don't see how this topic meets WP:N. I'm not saying it absolutely doesn't, but I'm interested in someone asserting how it does.  Frank  |  talk  19:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not claiming that it does meet notability, but there is at least some coverage in reliable sources. But it is crucial to remember that this is a userspace draft, not a mainspace article. The whole idea is to allow users to work on finding sources and crafting language to make a qualified article if they can, without precipitously deleting it. If the page is still in place after several months with no sign that it could be moved into the mainspace, then another MFD would be appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's also important to remember that userspace (but not usertalk-space) drafts are indexed by Google just like articles are, and therefore are just as much a part of our public face, and often used to disparage people just as articles are often used that way. We delete stuff like this from userspace every day. (Btw, stop me if I'm talking too much; the subject interests me a lot, and I'm trying to keep the discussion going and make sure all the relevant points enter the discussion somewhere.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NEO and WP:WINAD (and a dash of WP:BLP). Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's part of the humor battle of politics and is as legitimate as the Democrat's donkey (Thomas Nast did *not* create that as a favor to them). If any change, put it in the article incubator. TMLutas (talk) 03:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The "Gore effect" is basically humor and is in common parlance among conservative bloggers and other climate change skeptics. At least in the current version, I don't see this page as a WP:BLP violation or an attack on Al Gore. Admittedly, discussion of the Gore effect is basically a satire of Al Gore and his views, but Gore is very much a public figure with regard to the climate change controversy, and the page even refers to the effect as "mythological". Harmless page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worth noting what this page looked like when it was nominated for MfD, since it's been edited dramatically due to the MfD exposure. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other words, you have no objection to keeping it as edited? Collect (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's still objectionable because it's fundamentally unencyclopedic subject matter. It's a campaign of ridicule by Gore's political and corporate opponents. It's completely inappropriate to use Wikipedia to promote campaigns against living people, especially prominent public figures. We wouldn't have articles on "Al Gore is fat" or "Al Gore has a big house" so why should we have an article whose topic matter is essentially "Al Gore causes bad weather"? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • No it is not a campaign, you are seeing conspiracy's were none exist. This is an article about a phrase which has entered into the mainstream, it is used in multiple msm sources and is most definably within the bounds of cultural phenomena. I actually heard a guy using this phrase last night in the pub, he was about 70 and could see the humour and irony element in the phrase, why can`t you? It is obvious that people would pick up on the coincidence of bad weather on global warming demos, and it is even more obvious that it would be named for the most vocal AGW speaker, hence "The Gore Effect". --mark nutley (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't a Wikipedia article per se yet. It's a user page and it should be judged according to the criteria for user pages; it should not be expected to be of the same quality as an article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Worthy of being an article. If not, is certainly welcome in userspace, the term is out there, it is not going away, and reliable sources will be found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, would the fact that you can get this on mugs steins and t-shirts prove pop culture/cultural phenomenon? Cos you can get them here

  Hey, thanks. That's an interesting angle as well. --GoRight (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. (And I don't even need to add it to the Urban Dictionary!) Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to agree that this isn't particularly significant. Modern technology makes it possible for one guy to set up sales of such items from his living room. --RL0919 (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Update Some work has been done on the page. So far, the references are one blog, three opinion pieces (Washington Times editorial, Herald Sun and Washington Examiner ... note "opinion" in the urls), one book that's a compilation of cute entries from the Urban Dictionary, the New American website (the mouthpiece for the historically white nationalist John Birch Society), and the New York Daily News. (For people who aren't familiar with the Daily News, click on the reference and skim down the right side of the Daily News page to see a representative sampling of their articles.) Are there any better references out there? - Dank (push to talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If you look in the page`s talk dank you will see a section wit ha fair few links in it :) I was under the impression that we just had to show the phrase had entered into popular culture, what sort of sources do you think would be acceptable? mark nutley (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on where you see a new phrase around the internet is what we call original research. As Frank mentioned above, if this is ever going to survive as an article, the case for notability will have to be made, so there's more work ahead. If there are any sources on the talk page that aren't blogs or opinion pieces and that support notability, please add them to the page. - Dank (push to talk) 17:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat on a daily basis that you don't think the page is a good article adds nothing to the discussion. It is not necessary for a userspace draft to be a viable article on the first or second day of the MFD, or even at the end of the MFD. This is not an AFD. Userspace drafts, even for subjects of previously deleted articles, are commonly given months to be developed. When the MFD started, the concern that demanded immediate attention was whether it was an attack page, because there was an inappropriate image and the prose suggested the subject was a real natural phenomenon instead of a political joke. Those defects have been promptly remedied by removing the image, changing the text, and even noindexing the page so the draft will not appear in search engines while it is being worked on. With that done, there is no reason the normally acceptable process of allowing the draft to be refined and expanded should not continue on a more typical pace, instead of frenetically trying to prove it as a full-fledged article right now. That editors have been able, in less than two days, to find a commercially published book, an article in a major newspaper (accepted as a reliable source in hundreds of articles), and various opinion pieces that can be cited for their author's opinions on the subject, clearly demonstrates that there is potential to develop this into an article that would survive AFD. But, I repeat, this is not the AFD itself. --RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with revision deletion - The page in its present form [8] is no longer an attack page, however, all revisions prior to this diff should be deleted from the article history to remove the G10 context that led to the present debate. MLauba (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I think you editors are really jumping the gun here, and also, your vigorous attacks on this editor are misplaced. You are acting as if he made this up himself, but instead this is a well-known and well-used term around the blogosphere. The notion that pointing out coincidences somehow is an attack on Al Gore is silly, and some editors need to chill.Jarhed (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was Wikipedia supposed to be used to define "terms around the blogosphere"? Your comment perfectly illustrates why this article is fundamentally unencyclopedic. WP:INDISCRIMINATE#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article (yet) though. We can deal with that aspect if and when it makes it to mainspace. The MfD was started because a G10 deletion was contested, but in its present form, there's no compelling policy reason to prevent this from living in user space. MLauba (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Chriso, i believe jarhed meant this is a well know phrase not just in the blogosphere. --mark nutley (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on whether this article is encyclopedic or not. However, I do have an opinion on editors who want to delete articles from user space. I am not sure what to think about people who consider this article an attack of some sort on Gore. Saying that Gore controls the weather somehow is not even in my Vinn diagram of reality. And the notion that WP history should be fiddled with because of this article, PLEASE! Everyone calm down.Jarhed (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So were do we stand on this? Am i to be allowed to continue to work on this in my userspace? I have no intention of putting it into mainspace until such a time as i feel it is completed and then i will ask for feedback, once that is done and any objections cared for we can go through whatever the process is to have it allowed :) mark nutley (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming normal process, this discussion will be open until January 14 (possibly a bit longer if there is a backlog), at which point a non-involved administrator will review the discussion and decide whether there is a consensus for keeping or deleting the page. --RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the day before my birthday :) Will i have a nice pressie or a nasty one i wonder :) --mark nutley (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my pointing this out several days ago the article still contains idiotic language such as "Critics claim the "Gore Effect" is mere coincidence." You are not taking Wikipedia seriously, and this shows in this and other uses of unencyclopedic language--in effect, you have written a parody of a Wikipedia article.

In article space, this would not be an acceptable article stub. And as it stands it is still speediable as a page primarily intended to disparage Al Gore.

Perhaps most damning of all, though, is that discussion of this "Gore effect" is present in neither of the articles Al Gore and Al Gore and the environment. Were it a prominent cultural phenomenon associated with Gore, it would by now have made an appearance at least in the latter. It has not. Perhaps it should be. Why don't you pop over to the talk page of either of those articles and argue for inclusion of an item on the Gore Effect? This strikes me as more likely to produce useful coverage, if the phenomenon merits it, than creating a parodic stub in user-space. --TS 17:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you pointed out a problem and it wasn't immediately fixed by someone else. (Why not just fix it yourself?) That hardly makes the page unsalvageable or a parody. I was able to remove the problematic sentence very quickly by simple editing. Problems fixable by routing editing (much less those already fixed!) do not warrant speedy deletion or deletion of any kind. --RL0919 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, now. Please admit that a good article can be written for a cultural phenomenon that arises around a notable politician, for that is what this article is. And trying to lure this user to a different article where you know he will get his head bitten off...I don't know if that is somehow against WP policy, but it should be.Jarhed (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "cultural phenomenon", it's an meme devised by Gore-haters to ridicule him. Marknutley's original text made this perfectly clear: "Since Al Gore has become the commander-in-chief for those warning about the dangers of global warming, his detractors delight in noting coincidences between events relating to his favorite subject and severe winter weather." That's what makes this unencyclopedic, as Tony rightly says. The "Al Gore is fat" meme gets nearly as many Google hits as "the Gore effect"; does that mean we should have an article on "Al Gore is fat" as well? The wording of the article isn't the issue - it's the completely unencyclopedic nature of the subject matter. I note that neither of you have addressed Tony's question of why this couldn't be dealt with in either Al Gore or Al Gore and the environment. I can promise that if this article somehow survives MfD, it's going to get AfD'd the second it gets into article space. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memes that attack prominent politicians are well documented on WP. It can't be dealt with on Al Gore's BLP because it really would be an attack on him there. As for your certainty about what editors are going to do with regard to this article, I would really like to know how you come to such knowledge in advance. I would think that you, of all people, would want to avoid hinting at the presence of a cabal.Jarhed (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually try that out chris? I just did Results 1 - 10 of about 9,230,000 for the gore effect. Results 1 - 10 of about 1,590,000 for al gore is fat. So not quite the same results really. And if this makes it into article space you will AFD it regardless of what has been done? --mark nutley (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you clearly intend to move it into article space, it will get AfD'd as unencyclopedic if and when it gets moved there. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POV attack page and as unencyclopaedic twaddle. Jack Merridew 19:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Strike merridew, je appears to be banned as a sock. --mark nutley (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know what your motivation is for working on this article, but if you want to remain around here, you need to watch your behavior. It is not hard to see why a lot of the regular editors here are pissed off at you.Jarhed (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Watch your language pal, i clicked on jack`s name and saw what i thought said "this account has been blocked for being a sock", so i misread it and have already said sorry to jack for it. As you know i am new here and was under the assumption thats socks got banned, so i struck him cos i thought that is what you did (wmc struck a sock on an article) --mark nutley (talk) 08:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Abort, Retry, Fail. Jack Merridew 20:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The german wikipedia has this in as an article Hereand one of the german editors said it even made the front page over there in the requests for feedback i put up.[[9]] So if is ok for the german version the nit should be ok here right? --mark nutley (talk) 18:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope. The fact that a topic is covered in a different language has no bearing on whether it would be suitable on here. And lest we all get confused, you'll have to make up your mind. Either you're petitioning for being allowed to keep this in your userspace, or you're handling this as an article. Needless to say, I for one would be voting differently if this were an AfD. MLauba (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Obviously it is a userspace draft of a potential article, which hopefully can be improved to the point that it can move to the mainspace sometime in the future. That's the typical purpose of userspace drafts, so it shouldn't be a surprise. But you are correct that the German version has no particular bearing; different WPs may have varying standards. --RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, it's obvious that it's a draft of a potential article that might someday be moved to mainspace provided it meets our guidelines. The question asked of the community here is, however, whether the content is permissible in userspace or not. Its future move to mainspace has little bearing on the question asked at this MfD "should this content be kept at its present location?". MLauba (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As WP:USER says, "Your user page is about you as a Wikipedian, and pages in your user space should be used as part of your efforts to contribute to the project. In addition, there is broad agreement that you may not include in your user space material that is likely to bring the project into disrepute." If this material is intended to stay in userspace, how does it "contribute to the project"? If this material is intended to be turned into an article, does it have any encyclopedic worth? We cannot dodge the latter question. If it has no encyclopedic worth it cannot be transferred into mainspace, and it has no obvious project-improvement purpose that would justify it staying indefinitely in userspace. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is wrong to say that this article undoubtedly has no encyclopedic value. There are many similiar WP articles that document cultural phenomena that have arisen around notable politicians, very similiar if not identical to this article.Jarhed (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Forgive me, but that ref explains a deletion objection, not an objection to "encyclopedic value".Jarhed (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standards applied to a userspace draft are obviously less stringent, to a point, than those for a live article, for instance immediate encyclopedic value or WP:GNG are not under consideration for the purpose of an MfD. Judging an userspace draft (that is being quite heavily edited) by the criteria of a live article is premature, and not pertinent to the discussion. MLauba (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MLauba i am currently petitioning for it to remain in my user space, however i would of course like it to be an article one day :) Once it has been worked on and brought up to standards i would ask again in requests for feedback for opinions before thinking of puting it into mainspace. I suppose to prevent another drama like this it would be best to ask a few admins or is their a way to ask the community for their opinions before it went live? mark nutley (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because articles on this subject have been deleted in the past, one approach would be to present the "finished" draft for review at WP:DRV, when the time comes. --RL0919 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't hold any particular sway in these matters, any experienced editor without a bone on the political context will be able to give proper feedback.

What is at stake here is whether the draft stays sufficiently clear of WP:BLP issues to be kept for further development, and if I were in the camp of these who want it to be kept at all costs, that's what I'd be concentrating on for the MfD (though given the date that train may have left the station a while ago). Similarly, the opposition's task is to make the case that the draft is still fraught with issues to a point where it violates our standards on preventing libel. The transfer to article space is, here, a distraction. That being said, if the argument is carried by the delete votes, it will become infinitely more difficult to write an article about this topic in the future, since doing it either in main space or user space will become eligible for a speedy deletion under the G4 criterion (recreation of material deleted through a previous discussion). Which, for the sake of keeping the article, makes it focussing on the present state doubly important.

On the other hand, if this closes as no consensus or keep, once you believe it meets our article guidelines, I'd personally ask for feedback at WP:Requests for feedback, fix the issues, and then do exactly what RL0919 recommended, take it to WP:DRV. A possibility that goes away if the delete argument gains consensus, not just today but in the foreseeable future (since it will be extremely difficult to present a draft for review at WP:DRV). Hence the recommendation to pick your battle. MLauba (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One point to bear in mind is that articles on this "topic" have already been repeatedly deleted: twice through AfD and once through CSD, not including the reversed CSD that led to this MfD. Gore-haters keep producing articles about it which keep getting deleted. To be honest, this should really have been a CSD G4 in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prior deletions were related to the content of the prior versions. They have no bearing on this discussion. To demonstrate the level of "hate" being foisted on Gore in the current article consider this sentence: "The effect is named after former U.S. Vice President and Nobel Peace Prize winning anthropogenic global warming crusader Al Gore." That's actually the full and complete extent of any relationship to Gore in the current article. What a hate mongering POS, eh? --GoRight (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at the original version of this article with the original, now-deleted, images, it's blazingly obvious what the author's intention was - as others have noted. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My good friend ChrisO is requested to review WP:AGF. The evolution of the article since it was restored is all the refutation of his claim that is required. --GoRight (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD decisions cannot grant G4 for userspace - otherwise userification itself would not be possible. And CSD deletion in whatever space do not constitute precedent for anything but salting if recreation becomes disruptive. Further, regardless of the intent of the creator, the draft has been restarted since the MfD began - hence my above recommendation to delete the early history of the draft (also to ensure that if this were ever to make it to article space, a MOVE doesn't include the G10 early history.

Whether the actions of the original submitter give you license to suspend WP:AGF or not is not material any more: a BLP-compliant (in my view) version of the draft exists and has been worked on by multiple other editors. We're discussing the draft, not the intention of all its contributors. It is my view that intent behind the creation - for the purpose of enabling a G10 deletion - has been mooted once User:Hipocrite rewrote from scratch. Assuming bad faith on every other contributor is not conductive to the kind of editing climate (pun intended) that benefits the encyclopaedia, and since I'm tossing my opinion around here anyway, I also believe that an editor who starts a draft for a negative motive may, through the course of this MfD, think again and finish working on something that has, at least until WP:DRV decides otherwise, potential for proper encyclopaedic value. That being said, I've said my peace, and don't intend to pursue this any further. May the stronger arguments prevail. MLauba (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – inherently unencyclopedic POV polemics topic; no chance this could ever become a legitimate article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We generally allow semi-dedicated non-IP users leniency on userspace. This page should be no exception.--WaltCip (talk) 21:45, 15 January 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.