- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Gore Effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Afd, per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. The article even cites secondary sources which state that the term is insulting. Editors in the last AfD discussion argued the article is funny. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - can you explain why you think this is a WP:BLP issue? I don't see that it says anything at all about Al Gore personally, other than that he is a climate change activist, which we have a whole well-sourced article about. shoy ( reactions) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- For instance, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Looking at some articles who mention the Gore effect, it seems to be not really RS compliant and appears to be often written in a partisan manner. The entire thing is just opinion.
prokaryotes (
talk)
14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't like how other articles use the phrase, change those articles instead. That's not an AFD issue. shoy ( reactions) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- For instance, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Looking at some articles who mention the Gore effect, it seems to be not really RS compliant and appears to be often written in a partisan manner. The entire thing is just opinion.
prokaryotes (
talk)
14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This passes WP:GNG as was previously established. I don't see how this relates to WP:BLP, as it contains no unsourced attacks or negative comments directly against Al Gore. I'm also not sure which part of WP:NOT would apply here. — Torchiest talk edits 16:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, borderline propaganda
WP:NOT -- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Many of the articles which source the term use it in a sense to deny global warming or to make fun of the topic, i.e. the kind of reporting
here. And there aren't really a lot of RS reports. Thus, not notable.
prokaryotes (
talk)
20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree. We have
Bushisms, which is essentially the same type of idea. Just because something is a bit goofy or potentially embarrassing doesn't immediately mean it falls under
WP:NOT. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay with such articles ... i withdraw my request then. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree. We have
Bushisms, which is essentially the same type of idea. Just because something is a bit goofy or potentially embarrassing doesn't immediately mean it falls under
WP:NOT. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, borderline propaganda
WP:NOT -- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Many of the articles which source the term use it in a sense to deny global warming or to make fun of the topic, i.e. the kind of reporting
here. And there aren't really a lot of RS reports. Thus, not notable.
prokaryotes (
talk)
20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This is in the vein of the Pauli effect or the Adam Cheng effect, and it has received coverage from several notable places. I don't think it particularly qualifies as a "BLP" problem since being known as a ' jinx' is neither particularly pejorative nor insulting. It's sort of like saying "I can't ever hit the slot machines when ol' Bob is around!" I think it should stay. As pointed out before, we have Bushisms and other such articles in the same vein. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - per arguments above: the argument from WP:BLP doesn't apply here, and I'm struggling to see the argument from WP:NOT. Though I see above that the proposer seems to be withdrawing the proposal. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) — JJMC89 ( T· C) 02:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
AfDs for this article:
- Gore Effect ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Afd, per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. The article even cites secondary sources which state that the term is insulting. Editors in the last AfD discussion argued the article is funny. prokaryotes ( talk) 02:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - can you explain why you think this is a WP:BLP issue? I don't see that it says anything at all about Al Gore personally, other than that he is a climate change activist, which we have a whole well-sourced article about. shoy ( reactions) 13:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- For instance, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Looking at some articles who mention the Gore effect, it seems to be not really RS compliant and appears to be often written in a partisan manner. The entire thing is just opinion.
prokaryotes (
talk)
14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you don't like how other articles use the phrase, change those articles instead. That's not an AFD issue. shoy ( reactions) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- For instance, "Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." Looking at some articles who mention the Gore effect, it seems to be not really RS compliant and appears to be often written in a partisan manner. The entire thing is just opinion.
prokaryotes (
talk)
14:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This passes WP:GNG as was previously established. I don't see how this relates to WP:BLP, as it contains no unsourced attacks or negative comments directly against Al Gore. I'm also not sure which part of WP:NOT would apply here. — Torchiest talk edits 16:12, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, borderline propaganda
WP:NOT -- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Many of the articles which source the term use it in a sense to deny global warming or to make fun of the topic, i.e. the kind of reporting
here. And there aren't really a lot of RS reports. Thus, not notable.
prokaryotes (
talk)
20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree. We have
Bushisms, which is essentially the same type of idea. Just because something is a bit goofy or potentially embarrassing doesn't immediately mean it falls under
WP:NOT. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay with such articles ... i withdraw my request then. prokaryotes ( talk) 01:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree. We have
Bushisms, which is essentially the same type of idea. Just because something is a bit goofy or potentially embarrassing doesn't immediately mean it falls under
WP:NOT. —
Torchiest
talk
edits
01:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, borderline propaganda
WP:NOT -- Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. Many of the articles which source the term use it in a sense to deny global warming or to make fun of the topic, i.e. the kind of reporting
here. And there aren't really a lot of RS reports. Thus, not notable.
prokaryotes (
talk)
20:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - This is in the vein of the Pauli effect or the Adam Cheng effect, and it has received coverage from several notable places. I don't think it particularly qualifies as a "BLP" problem since being known as a ' jinx' is neither particularly pejorative nor insulting. It's sort of like saying "I can't ever hit the slot machines when ol' Bob is around!" I think it should stay. As pointed out before, we have Bushisms and other such articles in the same vein. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 23:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - per arguments above: the argument from WP:BLP doesn't apply here, and I'm struggling to see the argument from WP:NOT. Though I see above that the proposer seems to be withdrawing the proposal. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 17:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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.