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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable obvious political cheapshot; ideological trivia like "Teleprompter President" and all the Bush/chimp jokes. Orange Mike | Talk 03:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We had a discussion on this not too long ago. If we can get rid of all pages like this, then very strong delete. Politically motivated POV article.--WaltCip (talk) 06:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this being brought up again? I was told it was ok to work on this in my userspace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)
• Delete just like last time, only speedy this time William M. Connolley (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The actual last time was a "no consensus" keep on MfD. Prior AfD discussions when this content was in the mainspace shouldn't be held against this userspace page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An interesting collection of referenced events. Can they be explained as co-incidences statistically, or is it due to reporting bias? In time, POV issues will resolve. Is not merely a collection of jokes. User:Marknutley might be well advised to state his intentions on how he tends to work on it, or to keep it blanked during periods without work, due to the tendency of the material to upset some people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to blank a page without it being actually deleted? Or would i blank it and then undo that when time allows for it to be worked on again? mark nutley (talk) 12:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is blanked, it is not deleted, and can be unblanked by anyone (including you) at any time. It looks like you have not worked on it since it was userfied. If you were intending on working on it later in the year, I'd suggest blanking it now, and unblanking when you get back to working on it. Keeping live, published on wikipedia, albeit in your userspace, makes it look like you are keeping an archive of an unacceptable mainspace page for its own sake, and we are sensitive about people doing that. We do not want to have any kind of sub-standard encyclopedia existing in userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had not realized that, erm, how do i blank the page? I`ve not worked on it as i created another article (which funnily enough is also under threat of deletion :) ) and work has kept me busy. I put this one on the back burner as i assumed it was ok to just leave it. I`m happy to blank it (if someone tells me how) And work on it wehn time allows. mark nutley (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To "blank", and edit the page, and remove all of the content.

I note that past "attack" is now long since edited away, and that the controversial meme/neologism is treated quite properly, with commentry sourced, and from an arms-length perspective. Whether this page can become anything depends on future developments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a userspace draft on a political meme/neologism that has at least some coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps the term itself is a "political cheapshot", but that doesn't mean a potential article about it is. We attempt to provide neutral coverage of based on what sources say about a topic, even when that topic is politicized. I see no reason why a reasonable draft should not be allowed to continue to evolve in userspace. (It was predictable that this would be renominated after the previous MFD closed as "no consensus". Hopefully we can get a clear result this time so we don't have to repeat this every few weeks.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope you noticed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore Effect and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gore effect. There doesn't seem to be much hope it will ever fare any better William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said in the previous MFD, one of the qualities of a neologism is that its notability can change significantly over a couple of years. The article at Gore effect (in early 2008) appeared to have no reliable sources (just some blog posts). In 2009, Gore Effect cited just two sources. The current userspace draft cites eight. Perhaps the term will fade from discourse and never reach the threshold of notability (if it hasn't already), or perhaps it will spread, but it would be wrong to assume that lack of notability in the past means lack of notability forever. --RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• William M. Connolley is a climatologist with a great deal of "ownership" over many if not all of the climate articles on Wikipedia. It's unlikely that he can be swayed that this is a notable or even a feasible topic.--WaltCip (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is objectively false. Have another go? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom & WMC. No reason for this to exist in userspace if can't be brought up to article quality, and there's no indication that it can be. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Wouldn't survive in article space, is borderline attack. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We just had a discussion of this page less than a month ago at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect which closed as no consensus. I see no reason to keep harassing User:Marknutley by renominating this harmless user page. Note that the German Wikipedia has a mainspace article with multiple sources about this concept at de:Gore-Effekt, which suggests that this article could become a legitimate article here as well. Furthermore, this page is not an attack on Al Gore; rather, it describes the "effect" as a "mythical phenomenon". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article is terrible. It cites multiple blogs and self-published sources, which at least Marknutley's (current) version doesn't do. If I knew enough German I'd nominate that one for deletion as well. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears to be full of OR. A lot of the supporting refs don't mention any sort of "Gore effect". Guettarda (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable, neologism & political cheap shot. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that userspace drafts are not required to provide the sort of firm demonstration of notability that would be required for article space. That's why it is a userspace draft instead of an article. --RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• True. But I didn't say that the topic failed to demonstrate notability, but that it wasn't notable, which is based on the last deletion discussion and my own attempt to find evidence of notability. And if it's not notable, no amount of massaging can convert a draft into an article. So what's the point of keeping it? Guettarda (talk) 04:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Items that are not notable can become so quite easily when they are contemporary political memes. And in any case, the subjects of userspace drafts are required to "be" notable any more than the draft is required to demonstrate notability, so the fine distinction in your grammar has no relevance. A !vote to delete a userspace draft on the basis that it's subject not notable should be discounted. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the strong political machine of both sides can make buzz about any silly thing, that does not mean it is notable. Sole Soul (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This page was originally created as a blatant attack page. It's been toned down since then, but there's only so much lipstick you can put on the pig. It still suffers from the fundamental problem of being totally unencyclopedic. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What precisely makes a political meme "unencyclopedic" as a subject? --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It is simply not a topic substantial enough to warrant coverage in a serious, respectable reference work. It is a political attack slogan promoted by bloggers, like "Teleprompter President" or Bush/chimp. Wikipedia is not a political platform. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Compared to the previous version, the topic respectively the political joke behind found much more international attention. Last deletions were for weak sourcing, now even Germanies "Die Zeit"" with author Harald Martenstein found it worth while a comment. Btw I am NOT talking about User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect, its the real one now. --Polentario (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  clarification - Actually, that latter is a poor partial translation, probably done by computer, from the German article, using the term Gore-Effekt. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This is the MFD for the MN version. You can't vote to keep other articles here. A "keep" on this one becomes even more obviously pointless if Gore Effect has been re-created, yet again. Though I suspect that will go, yet again, for the same reasons as before William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The German true believers didnt get through with a deletion attempt. lets see how it works here. --Polentario (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very much like disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, which is likely to get you sanctioned if you persist. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing wrong with having a userspace draft for an article that already exists. It's quite common. The status of the article has no bearing on the status of this page unless there is some inappropriate relationship between the two, such as a cut-and-paste move. --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that there was no "article that already exists" until Polentario's stunt just now. The re-created article has now been speedily deleted. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly disagree with the claim the stunt fullfilled G1 requieremts. I would recommmand to have a look on the combined sources of both "stunts". IMHo the former claims that the article was not sourced properly are void. The "Gore effect" has spread beyond the blogosphere and as well beyond the American scene. In so far keep. --Polentario (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the short and unlamented life of your stunt rather clearly shows that this user-space text has no hope of becoming a real article, so may as well go William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First: Hoaxes, urban legends or even violent expressions have got separate articles in WP, and one of the reasons to include them in WP is when they get enough international interest. You imho try to play on the fact, that you can call for followers if you want to have article eradicated. The fact that the pretext to erase the article in no time was first to call it a bable fish victim and minutes later the same person called it "not welcome" shows an hmm unbalanced respectively biased act of the powers that be. The simple question wether the topic - the Gore effect - has been significantly mentioned in different international sources has not been answered by this neither ever by you. --Polentario (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• Keep There is no requirement that a userspace essay be a mainspace article. Some of those !voting to delete are doing so not on the basis of WP guidelines, but on the basis that they somehow oppose the content of the article. The best solution is to ignore it in such a case. Keeping multiple MfDs until one gets the "right" result is a major waste of everyone;s time at best. MfD is also a poor place to broach sanctions. Collect (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• *If* it was just a user space essay attitudes might be different. But it isn't an essay. It is a userspace draft intended to become a real article one day William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very old saying "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." It is not a bad adage. Collect (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - article has no chance of making a return, as made clear in the AfD; there's no point in retaining a copy in userspace if it is not to work on to return to article-space. We had a similar case last year, where it was found that retaining or recreating userfied articles that have no chance of recreation is considered problematic and disruptive. Tarc (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Having considered the past problems with this article, I see them as them past, and do not see current evidence of a problem, or of disruption by either the existence of the page or the user hosting it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That it exists at all is the problem. We don't get to userfy our pet POV articles when they are deleted. Tarc (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We do get latitude for POV in userspace, but I partly agree, and that is why I recommend to User:Marknutley that he blank the page until he actually gets to work on it. Possibly, he do something good, and I like to think that we can trust him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I`ll blank it once this mfd is over, i think it is best to leave it up for now so people can see what the fuss is about mark nutley (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, why do you insist on keeping this. It is a neologism that clearly fails WP:N at this time, so keeping it hanging around, even in a courtesy-blanked state, seems utterly pointless. In the unlikely scenario where this thing does gain traction and becomes notable, it'd be a simple matter to request undeletion. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can`t work on it if it`s deleted :)

• Keep Users should be permitted to make attempts at rewriting deleted articles, even if some other editors don't like the possibility of returning the article to mainspace. Also, I don't see the "obvious political cheapshot" or "ideological trivia" mentioned in the nomination, so I think there is questionable rationale for this discussion in the first place. Peacock (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  An article cannot be magically re-written into notability; it's either there or it isn't. Tarc (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly. Of course it can. Notability can change over time. New sources establishing notability can be found. It happens all the time. Peacock (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the key point; over time. There is nothing right now that can be added to the article to establish notability, as it simply isn't there, hence the "magically" comment. Deleted articles are moved to user space to address specific issues that can be worked on now, and return it to article form. Since this cannot be done at present, there is no reason to retain a copy of this. As I noted elsewhere in this discussion, if notability changes in the future, it is a simple matter to request undeletion. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the issues cannot be addressed right now or soon. There doesn't seem to be any logical basis for urgency in getting rid of this. Give it time. There is no policy suggesting a need for quick deletion when an article is moved to userspace for improvement. It's not like we put a countdown timer on these things. Peacock (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hmm i been working a while for the "did you know" space on the german main page and in QS. Hmm adding suitable sources, rebrushing text and wording works. It has happened. What you say is just" i dont like the topic and i dont care how its described, i dont want it here." It hasnt to do much with wikipedia but its a decision based on personal taste. Would you use that point in any other circumstances? --Polentario (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - 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. Keeping it around in userspace seems like political soapboxing (even if it's not intended as such) and an effort to defy consensus. Robofish (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Administrator note Relisted. This discussion currently has no consensus. Many of those commenting have the same opinions as last time, and with respect to some of the comments that a firm decision should be reached this time around, to prevent possible future nominations, I feel some newer opinions should be sought. Of course, if the discussion remains no consensus at the end of another seven-day run, there's not much we can do. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:53, 21 February 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.