| Revision as of 16:41, 27 April 2012 editLembit Staan (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,433 edits →Geek humor← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:41, 27 April 2012 edit undoDream Focus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,002 edits →Geek humor: I do so much hate rerunsNext edit → | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *'''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) | |||
Revision as of 20:41, 27 April 2012
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)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 22. Snotbot t • c » 23:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
- Weak keep The further reading section suggests there are books that discuss this topic, so that even if this article hasn't been improved yet it still could be. It's taken many pages a lot longer than 2 years to get to a reasonable state. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- You probably didn't look into these books. Both of them are actually about hacker's subculture, in particular, about computer humor. The second one is just a joke collection. In other words, they are actually about "computer geeks". Please check my nomination again: there are dozens of other kinds of geeks, some of them with incompatible senses of humor. There simply cannot be one common "geek humor". Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 23 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)
- 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)
- Delete Just isn't enough of substance here to justify a page.JoelWhy (talk) 14:04, 23 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)
- 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)
- 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).
- Delete per nom. Also, the Geek article can be used to cover the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep per my reasoning at prior two AfDs which still applies in its entirety.--Milowent • 23:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, and just like your resoning in two prior afds you give no arguments that the subject is defined somewhere in an encyclopedic way. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:53, 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)
- Please get familiar with the world, your ignorance is laughable.--Milowent • 02:06, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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 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)