Deletion of Gore Effect (2nd nomination)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: 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  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.http://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-sns-trvrail1-wk4-story.htmlhttp://www.nydailynews.com/news/gore-effect-brings-snow-new-york-city-article-1.436120http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gore-effect-brings-snow-new-york-city-article-1.436120http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/16295/al-gores-climate-extremes/patrick-j-michaelshttp://www.spectator.co.uk/features/notebook/8751471/somerset-notebook
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:GEVAL)