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
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
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
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
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
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