Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballmer Peak


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  21:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ballmer Peak

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Not notable - the article is a 3 sentence stub about a joke from an xkcd comic, with two of the three sources used being from xkcd itself and the xkcd wiki. Doing a google search, it appears that there's little else about the topic besides the Observer article, outside of blog posts and other self-published sources. — Chevvin 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: Distillery using this name, nothing for the web comic/meme thing that this article is about. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Merge into a section in Xkcd due to being notable enough for one source. Not notable enough for an article. -1ctinus📝  🗨  23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge into the Xkcd article for reasons stated above: that multiple sources are used suggests the topic is notable enough for inclusion. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing opinion to Strong Keep after the previously made points. As said before, the sources meet the notability guidelines but the topic would be difficult to smoothly integrate into the Xkcd article. RyanAl6 (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ballmer Peak is not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Normally redirects should be mentioned at the target. – Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Ballmer Peak is a humorous and intentionally incorrect claim contradicting the Alcohol-related brain damage page. It makes no sense as a redirect to there. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Computing.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Strong delete – There's nothing here, just a single study and report that uses the term. Should not be merged into xkcd either, that article already struggles with the many things that grew out of xkcd over the years. (The Observer article technically doesn't even really mention the webcomic btw). This topic probably doesn't meet medical inclusion criteria; it's quite serious to tell people (based on just a single study) that drinking alcohol can make you productive. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong keep
 * is an academic study which news reports  have entire articles reporting on wrt this term.
 * is another study which looks at the same issue and references the topic.
 * There are plenty of reliable, independent news articles which define the term. For example Tech Crunch and Venture Beat.
 * There are books which define and explain the term. For example How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization, Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep? and The Healthy Writer.
 * This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study. Way over our inclusion guideline. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet WP:MEDRS... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related. The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea.  And we prove notability by sources.  But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts.    Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRES isn't relevant because this is not a medical article. Per the lead sentence: "The Ballmer Peak is a humorous concept..." Dan Bloch (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Then why are we citing scientific studies? The Observer article seems to be presenting fairly direct advice: drinking alcohol can in fact increase your productivity. I recognize that this is humorous, but to me that makes it a scarier vector for misinformation. "We wouldn't have an article on this if it wasn't funny" would be a really bad sign. For the record, however, I don't quite know and also want to defer to someone with more experience in that field. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 14:16, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge: leaning delete. I don't think there's any argument that the above sources qualify this for GNG through SIRS. Let's stick to our scope and leave this to urban dictionary and the like. Draken Bowser (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify how they don't meet SIRS? The books are are fairly short (a paragraph) but define the term with a bit of history so may well be significant.  The other parts are clearly met as far as I can see.  The news articles meet all 3.  The research papers could be argued to be primary I guess, but "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event".  They are close to *an* event (their research) but are secondary in this context.  Basically asking for you to document why you think GNG isn't met when we have 7 sources listed. Hobit (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I consider it insufficient. Unless ctrl+f fails me it's not mentioned in all of the sources, and included in one merely as an efn. Draken Bowser (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The bar is "multiple". It is mentioned in all but one.  And that one is referenced by 2 of the others as being about this topic.  Two of the sources are solely on the topic (with the name).  Two (the papers) cover the notion in detail but only one references it by name.  The three books all discuss it by name.    Hobit (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's nowhere near in-depth. Draken Bowser (talk) 07:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting as I see lots of opinions but no consensus yet. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC) Relisting comment: I see some support for Merge/Redirect as a viable ATD, but no consensus as to a target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Question – If merged into xkcd, what would the addition looks like. Would it be included in the "Academic research" section and say something like "A hypoethsized phenomenon linking alcohol consumption and productivity is named after an xkcd joke, the "Ballmer Peak""? Would such an addition be appropriate? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 10:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It could go under the "Inspired Activities" section. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment: Short-term productivity changes could be covered at Short-term effects of alcohol consumption but aren't explicitly. If they were, then that could be a merge/expansion target, where this term/concept could be referenced. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

It’s not a medical phenomenon. It’s a satirical concept that is an Internet meme that has become significant enough that it is mentioned in multiple articles, including those that are about Ballmer (the one-time CEO of one of the largest companies in the history of the planet) himself. There is a news article (with video) on an event inspired by the topic of this article. If you were to merge it into something, it would be to Steve Ballmer, rather than xkcd, since the article coverage about Ballmer peak generally links it to Ballmer (in an interview, stock jump upon his retirement) and not around xkcd. But I don’t think it should be merged. I think it should just stay as an article. Jenny8lee (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge The limited scholarly work on this concept, and that fact that this is a meme and most of the scholarship and commentary is clearly tongue in cheek, argue for merging this into xkcd under the "Inspired activities#Academic research section, not keeping it as a free-standing article. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that this doesn't meet WP:N? Some other policy or guideline? Very few of our articles are the subject of scholarly work at all.  If we were to use that measure, this topic is probably in the top 10% of all articles, so it seems odd to pick this one to remove for that reason.   Hobit (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that under WP:PAGEDECIDE, it makes more sense given the current sourcing to consider this a subsidiary topic under xkcd. In the future it might easily grow in significance to warrant a free-standing article. Scholarly articles are not the only indicia of notability, nor are they the sine qua non of freestanding notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Two studies into a specific type of influence of a depressant does not necessary make for a stand-alone article. I'm sure you could find a pair of studies for any part of the alcohol experience. The sourcing here is not comparable to our articles on Impact of alcohol on aging, Alcohol and cancer, Effects of alcohol on memory, Alcohol use and sleep, etc. It does feel like a subsection for Short-term effects of alcohol consumption if all we have is these two studies. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat ) 07:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it does meet the requirements of WP:N, yes? I mean there are multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the topic. And that is the bar here?  Hobit (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the original article. And with the help of Hobit‘s links in this thread, I added additional citations from Fortune, TechCrunch, and Venturebeat, including one where it was mentioned in an interview with Ballmer himself to bolster the SIRS case.
 * Delete per WP:TNT. If absolutely needed, I would not oppose a redirect to an appropriate target, if you can find one. Bearian (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep − Article has been expanded since original AfD posting, now passes WP:GNG. Dan Bloch (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (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.