Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Geek humor (3 nomination): Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:10, 27 April 2012 editLembit Staan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,433 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:18, 3 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(18 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Delete'''. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|F}}
<div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek humor}}</ul></div> <div class="infobox" style="width:50%">AfDs for this article:<ul class="listify">{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek humor}}</ul></div>
:{{la|Geek humor}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>) :{{la|Geek humor}} – (<includeonly>]</includeonly><noinclude>]</noinclude>{{•}} <span class="plainlinks"></span>)
Line 15: Line 22:
::I significantly improved the article, by ]. Some of what he deems "original research" is paraphrased from the ] article. I suppose it might be considered SYNTH, if it were not empirically observable. In any case, this edit removed all the additional citations and other improvements; such heavy-handed and myopic deletion reminds me that there was a reason I curtailed my WP editing to the bare minimum of articles with great potential deserving rescue. Lem also asserts: "Also, you don't need references to wikipedia articles" Yes. Quite. However, the appearance of the linked subjects in a list is equivalent to an assertion that these are examples of geek humor, and this assertion requires verification. Hence the citations. I'll thank you, Lem, to restore them, for I will not soil my hands with picking up after your messes. ] (]) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC) ::I significantly improved the article, by ]. Some of what he deems "original research" is paraphrased from the ] article. I suppose it might be considered SYNTH, if it were not empirically observable. In any case, this edit removed all the additional citations and other improvements; such heavy-handed and myopic deletion reminds me that there was a reason I curtailed my WP editing to the bare minimum of articles with great potential deserving rescue. Lem also asserts: "Also, you don't need references to wikipedia articles" Yes. Quite. However, the appearance of the linked subjects in a list is equivalent to an assertion that these are examples of geek humor, and this assertion requires verification. Hence the citations. I'll thank you, Lem, to restore them, for I will not soil my hands with picking up after your messes. ] (]) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
:::You even know how it is called, yet you boldly proceed with it. So please don't act offended with what was to be expected. Per your explanation, I restored two refs that describe something as "geek humor". I can run google myself and add a dozen or so further ''usages of the term''. But face it, colleague, for two years and counting not a single defender of the subject came up with a reference with ''encyclopedic'' treatment of the subject. ] (]) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC) :::You even know how it is called, yet you boldly proceed with it. So please don't act offended with what was to be expected. Per your explanation, I restored two refs that describe something as "geek humor". I can run google myself and add a dozen or so further ''usages of the term''. But face it, colleague, for two years and counting not a single defender of the subject came up with a reference with ''encyclopedic'' treatment of the subject. ] (]) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, and per my reasoning at the AfD two years ago which still applies in its entirety. ] <sub>]</sub> 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' per nom, and per my reasoning at the AfD two years ago which still applies in its entirety. ] ] 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
**Explanation- the undeserved survival of the article at previous AfDs have hinged on unsupported arguments that ] and that ]. However, the sources have never been forthcoming and the promised improvements have never happened. Frankly, I think I've done more looking for sources than the article's defenders and I have come up empty-handed. The only real edits to this article since the first AfD have been the insertion of yet more unsourceable trivia. At what point do we say that the article's defenders have failed to meet the ]? IMO it should have been at the last AfD, but it must surely be time now. Incidentally, this also explains why delete opinions from previous AfDs remain valid today but the keeps do not. ] <sub>]</sub> 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC) **Explanation- the undeserved survival of the article at previous AfDs have hinged on unsupported arguments that ] and that ]. However, the sources have never been forthcoming and the promised improvements have never happened. Frankly, I think I've done more looking for sources than the article's defenders and I have come up empty-handed. The only real edits to this article since the first AfD have been the insertion of yet more unsourceable trivia. At what point do we say that the article's defenders have failed to meet the ]? IMO it should have been at the last AfD, but it must surely be time now. Incidentally, this also explains why delete opinions from previous AfDs remain valid today but the keeps do not. ] ] 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete''', from what I can see, nobody has ever defined clearly what "geek humour" actually is, thus making it next to impossible to write an article on it that doesn't contain original research or synthesis. A listing of humourous things that individuals have described as such is not really all that useful. ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC). *'''Delete''', from what I can see, nobody has ever defined clearly what "geek humour" actually is, thus making it next to impossible to write an article on it that doesn't contain original research or synthesis. A listing of humourous things that individuals have described as such is not really all that useful. ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC).


Line 28: Line 35:
*'''Delete''' Nothing beyond a description, can be adequately covered in the geek article.--] ] 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC) *'''Delete''' Nothing beyond a description, can be adequately covered in the geek article.--] ] 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Merge''' for now; or '''userfy'''. While in theory an article could be created, it would take some time. ] (]) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC) *'''Merge''' for now; or '''userfy'''. While in theory an article could be created, it would take some time. ] (]) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' Computer World labels a commercial "geek humor" in the article. Wired Magazine calls "Humans are Dead", "the best geek humor of the year". Its clearly a genre, and used as such. It isn't original research, its common sense. Is there any sincere doubt of what the term means? ]''' 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC) *'''Keep''' Just repeating what I said the first time this went to AFD, since its still a valid argument now. ] 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Computer World labels a commercial "geek humor" in the article. Wired Magazine calls "Humans are Dead", "the best geek humor of the year". Its clearly a genre, and used as such. It isn't original research, its common sense. Is there any sincere doubt of what the term means? ] 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
**Comment: there is no doubt what terms "]" or "]" mean, but the existence of a word does not automatically warrant a wikipedia article. ] (]) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC) **Comment: there is no doubt what terms "]" or "]" mean, but the existence of a word does not automatically warrant a wikipedia article. ] (]) 21:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
**P.S. Please fix your signature. Your timestamp is misleading. ] (]) 21:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
***Are those things an established genre though? Totally different situation. ] 21:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
****The situation is exactly the same as with "geek humor". What is you reason to doubt in the existence of style? I am donning some of it right now (not exactly the one on the photo, though). Oh, drat, I am so NOT giving you an idea of a new article! ] (]) 22:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
*****That's just a forum discussion. If you can find enough coverage of it, then yes, it'd be fine article. Other styles of dress have their own articles already. ] 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
*****: What does "enough coverage" mean to you? ] (]) 00:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
*****::Enough to prove it really exist. Find at least two reliable sources that mention it enough for that. Geek humor is something covered in the media quite often, but do they cover the nerd style of dress anywhere? ] 00:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
*****::: I suspect you are confusing the terms "covered" and "mentioned". If you find me a single reliable source (not from blog or forum or wikipedia mirror) which explains what does the term mean beyond the definition "geek humor is a humor of geeks", then this discussion is null and void. Yes, "nerd dress" is "covered" by media. How do you think I picked up the terms? I didn't invent them just to make fun of you. ] (]) 00:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::that was an omnibus AfD back in 2007, ], covering a good many lists of songs about , some of which got deleted, some not. . Misplaced Pages doesn't follow precedent, and this is 5 years later. I very much doubt if the same conclusion would hold today, especially because the closing nominator used the criterion "I will delete all lists in this nomination except those that at least one person in this discussion recommended keeping or that have survived a previous deletion discussion". For an AfD of that scope and different degrees of article quality, , the procedure today would be to relist individually. In fact, it would be good to restore some or perhaps all of the articles, suitably edited to meet the only valid objection--that some of the films listed only mentioned the topic, and were not principally about it. ''']''' (]) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' per nom. ] (]) 05:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
* '''Convert''' to a category with the listed items in and redirect this page to the category. ] (]) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
*:How you can have a category unless its a real thing, a genre in this case, and thus worthy of its own Misplaced Pages article to explain what it is? ] 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
*'''Delete or merge to ]'''. There is no substance to the article. It merely tells us that people make jokes about geeky stuff. But people make jokes about everything. I don't see the significant third party coverage of this subject as a distinct form of humor. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
*In the six years this article has existed, it often had much more (uncited, but citable) examples of geek humor and additional content. There are two books cited in the further reading section of the article which provide more expansive coverage of the subject. Its interesting to me how techy-culture articles like this used to be relatively immune from deletion because the geek quotient of wikipedia editors was fairly high--e.g., articles with far less sourcing (like about some small co. tech CEO or VC group) would get kept and I'd simply remain silent, a bit amused by this anomaly of wikipedia inclusiveness. By 2012, though, most of these editors have left, I guess, and its left even subjects that are notable rather vulnerable.--''']''' • <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">]</span></sup></small> 13:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 11:18, 3 February 2022

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 Delete. Panyd 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Geek humor

AfDs for this article:
Geek humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content; a mere dicdef. Nothing changed in 2 years since the last afd. The phrase "geek humor" may be in use, but no evidence that there is nothing but a collection of computer jokes, mathematical jokes, physical jokes, school band jokes, etc. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

There is not one common Religion, either. In other words, the fact that there is more than one type of geek humor is the foundation upon which expansion of the article can take place, not a justification for deletion. For now, I would just love to redirect it to JR Raphael, Android Power, or eSarcasm, as might befit topics that come up on almost all of the 125 Google News hits for "Geek humor", but none of those articles exist. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The only foundation for article expansion is availability of scholarly research of the subject. We can reasonably find refs for separate scholarly discussions of computer humor, mathematical humor, physicist humor, etc. However unlike Religion, everybody failed to present a body of research into the multitude and commonness of geek humors. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Geek is all about the details. There is considerably less specific content than suits the subject atm (i.e. Monty Python is arguably too mainstream), but there are no good rationales for deletion either. It is not merely a dictionary definition, nor is it currently presented as such, and what is wrong with a type of humor being a collection of jokes, exactly? Also see my comment above. Anarchangel (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I significantly improved the article, but my changes were reverted by User:Staszek Lem. Some of what he deems "original research" is paraphrased from the geek article. I suppose it might be considered SYNTH, if it were not empirically observable. In any case, this edit removed all the additional citations and other improvements; such heavy-handed and myopic deletion reminds me that there was a reason I curtailed my WP editing to the bare minimum of articles with great potential deserving rescue. Lem also asserts: "Also, you don't need references to wikipedia articles" Yes. Quite. However, the appearance of the linked subjects in a list is equivalent to an assertion that these are examples of geek humor, and this assertion requires verification. Hence the citations. I'll thank you, Lem, to restore them, for I will not soil my hands with picking up after your messes. Anarchangel (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You even know how it is called, yet you boldly proceed with it. So please don't act offended with what was to be expected. Per your explanation, I restored two refs that describe something as "geek humor". I can run google myself and add a dozen or so further usages of the term. But face it, colleague, for two years and counting not a single defender of the subject came up with a reference with encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per my reasoning at the AfD two years ago which still applies in its entirety. Reyk YO! 23:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Explanation- the undeserved survival of the article at previous AfDs have hinged on unsupported arguments that it might be sourceable and that it can maybe be improved. However, the sources have never been forthcoming and the promised improvements have never happened. Frankly, I think I've done more looking for sources than the article's defenders and I have come up empty-handed. The only real edits to this article since the first AfD have been the insertion of yet more unsourceable trivia. At what point do we say that the article's defenders have failed to meet the burden of evidence? IMO it should have been at the last AfD, but it must surely be time now. Incidentally, this also explains why delete opinions from previous AfDs remain valid today but the keeps do not. Reyk YO! 02:37, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, from what I can see, nobody has ever defined clearly what "geek humour" actually is, thus making it next to impossible to write an article on it that doesn't contain original research or synthesis. A listing of humourous things that individuals have described as such is not really all that useful. Lankiveil 03:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC).
I beg to differ. I noted that improvement needed to done and cited some avenues in the past.--Milowent • 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please get familiar with wikipedia rules WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH. None of the refs you added mention "geek humor". They may be such, but it is your conclusion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please get familiar with the world, your ignorance is laughable.--Milowent • 02:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Please respect wikipedia rules mentioned, as well as respect other wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing beyond a description, can be adequately covered in the geek article.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge for now; or userfy. While in theory an article could be created, it would take some time. Bearian (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Just repeating what I said the first time this went to AFD, since its still a valid argument now. Dream Focus 21:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Computer World labels a commercial "geek humor" in the article. Wired Magazine calls "Humans are Dead", "the best geek humor of the year". Its clearly a genre, and used as such. It isn't original research, its common sense. Is there any sincere doubt of what the term means? Dream Focus 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
that was an omnibus AfD back in 2007, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of songs about weather, covering a good many lists of songs about , some of which got deleted, some not. . Misplaced Pages doesn't follow precedent, and this is 5 years later. I very much doubt if the same conclusion would hold today, especially because the closing nominator used the criterion "I will delete all lists in this nomination except those that at least one person in this discussion recommended keeping or that have survived a previous deletion discussion". For an AfD of that scope and different degrees of article quality, , the procedure today would be to relist individually. In fact, it would be good to restore some or perhaps all of the articles, suitably edited to meet the only valid objection--that some of the films listed only mentioned the topic, and were not principally about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DocTree (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to a category with the listed items in and redirect this page to the category. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    How you can have a category unless its a real thing, a genre in this case, and thus worthy of its own Misplaced Pages article to explain what it is? Dream Focus 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge to Geek. There is no substance to the article. It merely tells us that people make jokes about geeky stuff. But people make jokes about everything. I don't see the significant third party coverage of this subject as a distinct form of humor.  Sandstein  11:53, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • In the six years this article has existed, it often had much more (uncited, but citable) examples of geek humor and additional content. There are two books cited in the further reading section of the article which provide more expansive coverage of the subject. Its interesting to me how techy-culture articles like this used to be relatively immune from deletion because the geek quotient of wikipedia editors was fairly high--e.g., articles with far less sourcing (like about some small co. tech CEO or VC group) would get kept and I'd simply remain silent, a bit amused by this anomaly of wikipedia inclusiveness. By 2012, though, most of these editors have left, I guess, and its left even subjects that are notable rather vulnerable.--Milowent • 13:05, 30 April 2012 (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.