Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek 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   no consensus, but it has been identified that the article needs a lot of work. As it is the first nomination of the article, it seems reasonable to give those asserting the article can be improved a chance to improve it. If the article has not been improved in a few months' time, I would expect to see it back here, and would be a lot less willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Geek humor

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Could not verify notability or recognition in arts literature. Found some websites that use the term, but no material that discusses, analyzes, or documents the term. Since there appears to be no literature on it, the article is unlikely to progress and can be expected to violate WP:NOR continually. Even if some editors can recognize the concept, it borders on documenting an invented term. No references, and little chance of there ever being any references. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 18:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep though the article needs a lot of work. It's a well-known neologism which is widely used (see many many examples on Google, Google news and Google books using the term and its alternate spelling 'Geek humor'). In the worst case, can always be merged to geek culture. Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * &hellip; except that none of them actually define a category that is named geek humour. The problem with this article, as discussed quite angrily on its talk page, was that it started out badly and got worse from there.  It began as a bizarre conflation of Star Trek with computers, and became even more confused as multiple editors tried and failed to fix the bad writing upon what is essentially a non-subject. If you want the real subjects, then the subjects discussed in sources as actual categories are computer humour (as written about in InfoWorld editorials, by John A. Barry, by Alan Dundes, and by others) and in-jokes.  This used to be a redirect to Category:Computer humor, notice.  (Computer humour and Computer humor still are.) There's a subject of computer humour that Wikipedia has little to none of the scholarly discussion on.  This could be refactored into it.  But if I were doing such refactoring I'd almost certainly start from scratch, Dundes and Barry in hand, preserving none of this muddled mish-mash at the wrong title.  And I say this as the rescuer of  and . Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then a redirect to geek culture might be in order. The term is common enough and it's a likely search term. Though we may not have access to some scholarly work on the topic, it's still a relevant notion and one that we wished we could write something smart about. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Keep Clearly notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well notability isn't really a relevant issue here. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd support giving the article a second chance if a user can identify a minimum of 1 notable source that defines or discusses the term, or even documents its use. The neologism's wide-scale use is not sufficient to warrant keeping it; if no notable sources exist that discuss it explicitly (rather than merely use it), then editors will have no option than relying on original research, which is not acceptable on WP. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 07:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - like lots of popular culture articles, this can be sourced well. With the possible exception of BLPs, notability is determined essentially by finding sources that discuss the concept.  The consensus in the past has been to keep such articles.  Rescue.  Bearian (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found which discuss the concept of geek humor in a significant way. Otherwise, it fails WP:V and WP:OR.    Snotty Wong   confabulate 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: A neutron walks into the fashionable Miracle of Science bar near MIT, orders a Sam Adams, and open up his wallet to pay.  'For you,' says the bartender, 'no charge!'--Milowent • talkblp-r  16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Two atoms were walking in NYC when they bumped into each other and one of them fell down. The first atom asked if the other was alright, to which the atom replied "No. I think I lost an electron." The first atom asked if the other was sure, to which the atom replied, "I'm positive". Freakshownerd (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. Geek humor is a real thing, which the news media comments on.   D r e a m Focus  05:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked examined all of those results. Not a single one discusses what geek humor is; they merely use the term 'geek humor'. Relying on such articles would require original research, as far as I can tell. dm yers t urnbull   ⇒ talk 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt you examined all 230 results. 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?   D r e a m Focus  12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You find further sources with the British spelling, also for books and scholar: . Did you know that the exact value of Google's planned share offering was US$2,718,281,828, which coincidentally also corresponds to the mathematical constant e? And that Firefox's preferences pane once explained cookies by the text “Cookies are delicious delicacies” instead of a more appropriate explanation for concerned users without prior knowledge of the concept? --Lambiam 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Dream Focus's analysis is weak. has to be indepth coverage.88.194.24.215 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * User 88.194.24.215 has made three edits total, two of which were to respond to me in AFDs.  D r e a m Focus  13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The very notion that one can accurately define what is, and what isn't, "geek humor" is ipso facto utterly daft. Just because it's a phrase that the news media uses doesn't automatically confer any sort of notability. Would fail either WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:SYNTH, pick your poison. Badger Drink (talk) 09:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: does anyone have a copy of the 1992 book "Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge"?. It reportedly has a section devoted to Geek Humor.--Milowent • talkblp-r  12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Commment: A pay wall article that may be of interest "Fun-Ware: Geek Humor" in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 23, issue 6, pp. 70-72 (2006).   Also, I noticed that CNN has a regular column called "Geek Out" which is devoted to geek humor.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's a boston globe post titled "Geek Humor".  I find it hard to fathom that we will not be able to find some article somewhere that includes a "definition" of geek humor, if it isn't already obvious.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Not sure how this source will be treated, but I found online archives of "HumourNet" which appears to be a geek humor usenet/email publication dating from 1994-96.--Milowent • talkblp-r  13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You make the point for us, over and over. Your CNN weblog nowhere defines a category of "geek humour".  In fact, the word "humour" doesn't occur anywhere.  The WWW diary of Robin Abrahams doesn't, either.  It just happens to use those two words as a title.  And the HumourNet collage that you point to defines nothing either, and simply contains an unanalysed list of computer programmer lightbulb jokes that the aforementioned sources actually classify as computer humour, and indeed present as examples thereof.  As stated before, you can put two words into Google Web and come up with pages containing those words.  You can even find them used as article titles.  But you won't find definitions of some category of geek humour, whereas you will find computer humour fairly well documented and analysed.  Try it, and see how easy it is to find real sources for the real subject, in comparison to clutching at rather thin straws with lists of lightbulb jokes for a subject that simply isn't real.  Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is wikipedia, not waaaaaaaahpedia. I believe its a real subject and will not be dissuaded until you show me that everything ever written does not include a definition of geek humor.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:54, 3 August 2010 (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.