Deletion of The Gore Effect

Comment: I saw this article because it was briefly linked in Global warming controversy. It does not belong there, as it is anecdotal at best. Unlike some of the flawed theories at that page, the Gore Effect, in the words of Wolfgang Pauli, "is not even wrong!". However, while it fails as science, it doesn't purport to be science, and is correctly described as a humorous term. The term is ubiquitous, occurring in enough |reliable sources that it is very plausible an individual might turn to Wikipedia to learn more about it. I feel strongly that there should be an article about the Gore effect—I'm less strongly convinced '''this''' is the article. But we don't generally delete articles that simply need some improvement to meet our standards. It would help immensely if, for example, the http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/global_cooling_confused_covera.php?page=all Columbia Journalism Review article pointing out that it doesn't meet the burden of scientific proof. The article feels unbalanced - quite a number of references talking about the anecdotes, not many challenging it. Surely there are some other than the CJR
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: This is an |original synthesis by search engine. Apparently, global warming denialists have a sense of humor and a particular disdain for Al Gore, but there is no consensus definition and no #Independent sources|independent sources have referenced the term or studied it ''as a term'' or ''as a phenomenon''. Until such time as it becomes a real meme as documented by people who are |reliable sources in such matters, Wikipedia should not be hosting a page that contains a laundry list of sources who have combined the terms "Gore" and "Effect" to stand for a variety of ideas
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:FRINGE||WP:RS)

Comment: In a previous AfD I recommended weak keep because, although there were many sources, there was only one written about the term in detail.  The sourcing of this article looks a little better than the one I recommended a weak keep on (and I still would have preferred to keep that article).  This isn't the biggest article but it's all |verifiable and in my opinion, |notable because it's discussed in multiple reliable sources
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: As the article currently stands,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gore_Effect&oldid=367677353 it's well sourced by |reliable sources and well written
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Although editorials in generally reliable newspapers are '''not''' considered reliable sources for "facts", they '''are''' considered reliable sources for usage.  Young Earth creationism, on the other hand, is just , and should be treated as such
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: Political invective?! At the same time that this is supposed to be a joke?? Oh, please. Al Gore is a  figure and we don't need to protect him from a common kind of satiric humor -- that meets  -- because we're worried he's going to be the victim of a Wikipedia "attack page". The article meets all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whenever I see "unencyclopedic" in an AfD, I wonder whether this is a way of avoiding saying |"I don't like it". The commentary on the phrase from Benen and Siegel show that the article goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. This is a notable example of political humor spread for political effect and inherently a proper topic for this vast, non-paper encyclopedia. Let's not censor ourselves in order to favor one side over another in a political controversy. This would make a good addition to Wikipedia:Unusual articles, joining such august company as Miss Me Yet?, Obamaism, Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet (we're going to protect Al Gore but leave some obscure Canadian politician to the wolves?), Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner, Polish Beer-Lovers' Party, Why I Want to Fuck Ronald Reagan|a certain horribly named article about
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:WELLKNOWN||WP:N||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: as a piddling neologism.  As I noted in a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent|recent AfD, ''"Usage does not equal notability"''.  Usage of the term in a derisive manner is not the same as reliable sources covering the term itself and its meaning.  What few sources that do address the subject itself are OpEds, and we do not push opinion as fact around here.  Thus, per #Statements of opinion, there is no basis at all here for an article.  I would not that several of the "keep because it's harmless" !votes should be weighted quite far down the scale when it comes time to close this.  I would not strenuously oppose a redirect to Al Gore and the environment, but even that is a little shaky
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)