Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geek humor (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The "keep" !votes are quite weak, but there is by no means a consensus to delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Geek humor
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is an essentially unsourced amalgamation of original research and trivia. It narrowly escaped deletion in July of last year where, although the general feeling was that it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia, it was given the benefit of the doubt and allowed some time for improvements. Since then, the only thing that's happened to this article is the addition of more unsourced trivia. This must now be taken as evidence that the required sources are not out there, and that the promised improvements are impossible. Reyk YO!  01:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  04:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  04:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  --  JN  466  04:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete not a notable brand of entertainment. Systemic bias to consider geekdom notable.  While I am indeed White and Nerdy that does not imply support for articles on geek branded sub-strata of notable activities.  MLA (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep I too am a major geek, but I find humor in all things, humor is not exclusive to an IQ. Some of the jokes mentioned in the article can be found on T-Shirts at Think Geek.com. The reason I am supporting it as an article is that there are several other humor types mentioned here on WP Types of Humor. The article needs a good deal of work. However, as a form of humor it may have some legs to stand on. If the article gets some shoring up then its a solid Keep. If the main editor cannot bring the quality up then I recommend Delete.  Golgofrinchian  (talk)  02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: A shame it hasn't been improved yet, but its not my preferred subject matter. But like the 1st AfD, it seemed notable to me then and i cited some sources at that time.--Milowent • talkblp-r  04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The topic is not inherently notable, any more than the jokes in any field of interest or endeavor might be, and the cited references, while relevant, don't seem sufficient to me to meet GNG. Cnilep (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I agree with Milowent.  And I don't see that anything has changed since the last AfD: this is still an article on a pretty clearly notable topic that hasn't been improved yet.  No real reason to delete this now, better to preserve.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definite Keep and improve. –SJ +  19:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly has plenty of room for improvement. For example, it currently makes no mention of The Big Bang Theory - an example of geek humour which is a mainstream success and which is reviewed in detail in this context by Science magazine.  Our editing policy in such cases is to keep the article in mainspace and we have no deadline for specific improvements.  The nomination is thus an example of an  argument to avoid:- WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic is notable, even if the article is lacking. Systemic bias is not an excuse for deletion. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Help me understand how the topic is notable. Would, for example, "Motor-enthusiast cuisine" or "Poets' fashion" or any other Cultural sub-group's aspect of culture topic be similarly notable? If not, what makes this particularly worthy of notice? If so, doesn't that open the door to a sort of reductio ad absurdum? If everything is notable, then nothing is.
 * If there are systematic studies of geek humor, that suggests that the topic is notable and can be properly treated here. The current Further reading and External links, however, are a book of essays on hacker culture and a string of examples - not discussions - of geek humor.
 * I don't accept that existence or even ubiquity (A Google book search for "geek humor" finds hundreds of hits, but with two exceptions all the books I saw were examples, not analyses. One exception is already listed under Further reading; the other was a mention of the Annals of Improbable Research) equals notability, though I am willing to be convinced. Most of what I see here seems like WP:ILIKEIT, or perhaps a sort of twin to WP:Just not notable which we could call "Clearly notable." Cnilep (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep As always, hose who think it should be improved are welcome to improve it.  As always, the cure for low quality articles is not deletion. As always, "failure to improve" is not a reason for deletion.    DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (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.