Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absurd humor


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Absurd humor

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a hopeless dicdef. Only one source, that lists only the author's opinion on what absurd humor is. This term seems too vague to be more than a dicdef/OR list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: how could we precisely define what is absurd? Alexius08 (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to Absurdism, which is what I thought the article would be about until I read it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absurdism has nothing to do with humour. You should read that article, too.  That would not be a good redirect. Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer both Alexius08 and the nomination: We don't need to come up with our own definition in violation of policy. Published experts already have defined what absurd humour is (or, at least, have argued at length as to what the definition is).  One such is folklorist Elliot Oring (professor in anthropology at California State University), who explicitly addresses the question "What defines this subset of humour, and how does it relate to 'standard' humor that lacks nonsensical or absurd characteristics?" in chapter 2 of ISBN 9780252027864.  Given that he devotes an entire chapter to this (It's entitled "The Senses of Absurd Humor".), there's enough in that source alone to expand this article.  And that's just one viewpoint.  He argues against the viewpoints of others.  So clearly there is yet more expert opinion on this subject to be had in addition to that one source, as well.  And, indeed, a quick search turns up "Reactions to absurd humor by Jews of eastern and western descent" in the Journal of Social Psychology, and people commenting on Charles R. Gruner's distinction between absurd humor and incongruity (in Understanding Laughter: The workings of wit and humor, ISBN 9780882291864), amongst many others. There seems to be ample material for an article here.  This is not hopeless.  Far from it.  It is a stub with potential for expansion from a fair few reliable, and academic, sources.  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Uncle G puts it well. A Google Scholar search turns up tons of hits, and there are a few more to be found under "absurdist humor" (if that is indeed the same thing; I think it is). --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sourced stub that has the potential to become a good article. JulesH (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:JulesH is correct.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  13:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to the more widely used "Absurdist humor". There's also possibility to merge to Surreal humour if there's a question of independent notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's an article that has nothing to say, and has said it for than a year. "It is a very creative type of humor, but at the same time, very confusing." is, as 10# says, the author's opinion, and it's worthless.  Voting to keep a stub because it "has potential" or that it might get better on its own does no favors to the page.  The fact that it is still a stub after twelve months, and the discussion itself, suggests that nobody actually cares about the subject and that it really is "hopeless".  If someone wants to improve it, then I'd change my mind.  Until then, mention it in humour and wait until an article can be written by a person who knows what they're talking about. Keep This is an excellent article.   Mandsford (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is an argument to avoid. It doesn't matter if it's been a stub for twelve months.  It wouldn't matter if it had been a stub for twelve years.  Cf WP:NOEFFORT and WP:DEADLINE for the reasoning.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  19:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm never going to avoid that argument. Quality does matter.  The argument to avoid is "keep it because it can be improved... but I don't want to do it".  Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But "delete it because I can't be bothered to fix it" is okay? ;-) -- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You should go back and re-read and re-absorb our Editing policy, and our Deletion policy. The fact that editors are not interested in expanding articles says nothing about the articles.  The only thing that it says something about is the editors.  It says that editors are unwilling to write.  We don't delete because you, or anyone else, is unwilling to write.  Rather, we acknowledge the possibility that someone may come along who, unlike you, is willing to write.  And we allow for that process to take as many years as necessary.  North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years before someone cared enough to expand it from a 2-sentence stub.  That is the sort of timescale in which some articles grow, and even then there is no deadline.  The only thing that that length of time says anything about is the unwillingness of editors to write on that subject.  It's not a reason to prevent editors from writing, or to prevent them from improving a stub with scope for expansion.  (Note that deleting stubs locks out the editors who actually write, and have written, most of our content, editors without accounts, since they cannot create new articles.  It actively excludes the very people who could improve an article, and have improved articles, the most.) We keep valid stubs with scope for expansion, and always have done.  It's how many of our articles began and grew.  It's how articles are collaboratively written.  It's the proven process that has already worked for many articles.  And it's enshrined in the project's basic policies.  Uncle G (talk) 00:15, 1 February 2009 (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.