Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherently funny word (4th 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). I still question the notability of the topic, but some verifiable content exists that could be merged into another page such as Humour or Humor research. Deletion may be considered once this is accomplished or at least discussed on the talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Inherently funny word
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently original research. No coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from trivial mentions. The concept of "inherently funny" is a matter of opinion, and therefore fails WP:NOTSOAPBOX. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Note The most substantive sources used in the article refer to a paper by Chris Westbury et al., which describes "perceived humor" (not inherent humor) as "a quantifiable function of how far NWs [non-words] are from being words". The entire concept of "inherently funny words" is therefore based on a misinterpretation of the source material. Some of the article contents could be merged into the articles Humour and Humor research, but doing so would leave nothing here but a list of trivia, hence the nomination to delete. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC) (updated 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Response - your focused definition of "substantive" would hold true in most articles, but in *this* article, the statements of comedians and comic characters can be legitimate sourcing, not just trivia as it would usually be. Those are people who make a living in the field, who study it and understand it. When H.L. Mencken says K words are funny that is at least as legitimate a source of information as a psychology professor's analysis. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there's some confusion here over what constitutes reliable sourcing. According to Verifiability, articles should be based on "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Fictional characters meet none of these criteria. Assembling a collection of utterances by unrelated people or characters and using them to prove a separate point is original research. This concept for this article seems entirely based on such WP:SYNTHESIS.
 * Granted, there's more reliably sourced information here than that simply about research. However, H. L. Mencken's essays and criticism are reliable sources for statements directly attributed to him, but scarcely for factual claims. Mencken's opinions on the subject would be an interesting addition to the article about the general phenomenon of humor, but don't demonstrate a given word’s inherent humor, which is supposedly the topic of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Virtually all references for psychology/sociology/culture topics could be dismissed as mere "opinion", even if published in a journal. I think you're being a bit academic-source-blinkered not to recognize how the practices of professionals in the field (humor writing), reflected in their statements, is solid evidence that this phenomenon exists and is widely recognized. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If there exists significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, and that address the topic directly and in detail, – not just primary sources such as essays, humor writing, etc. – please provide some references to prove that the phenomenon is so widely recognized, so that the article does not depend on original research to establish the importance of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Mencken's piece (and other writings of professional comics) IS a secondary source for this subject that establishes its importance, even though it is also humor writing; that's where you're missing the point (in my opinion, of course). Your idea of what constitutes a secondary source doesn't fit this topic. As we will agree to disagree. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Mencken's list of "joke towns" – owing to having the letter k in their names, which "has always appealed to the oafish risibles of the American plain people" – is what the General notability guideline means by "addresses the topic directly and in detail". Any interpretive claim about Mencken's statement – such as to support the general idea that words can be inherently funny – would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And what are the "other writings of professional comics" that address the topic of "inherently funny words" directly and in detail? Please provide some actual citations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, Mencken does not say that K words are funny. In his 1948 essay "The Podunk Mystery", he mentions the letter k in the names of "joke towns", including a fictional Podunk, only in passing, by way of explaining "the fate or ill fame of Podunk as a nest of the socially starved and intellectually underprivileged" and "an accepted symbol for bucolic coma". He appears to mean joke as something not worth taking seriously, rather than funny or amusing. This has nothing to do with the notability of "inherently funny words". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This isn't "list of inherently funny words" - which would, indeed, be problematic - this is an article about a concept that is embraced and used and studied by comedians, writers and academics. It has 18 (at current count) references. It could be improved, certainly (like 98% of wikipedia) but it's a legitimate article topic. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that most of the article is a list of words (or numbers) that someone or other found to be funny, with no unifying context provided by the sources – see sections, , and . None of the references in these sections address the topic "directly and in detail" per WP:GNG. Juxtaposing such a number of trivial facts – as if to prove that yes, the subject is notable – constitutes original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - And I mean very weak. There are a few actual reliable sources here that actually do confirm that yes, its a notable topic.  But about 3/4 of this article probably has to go, along with nearly all of the so-called "sources".  A lot of the article is pure OR and Synthesis (i.e. using Webster's dictionary to find out which letters are the least used, and then using an entirely different source to come to a conclusion of the article creator's own design.  Basically the very definition of synthesis).  And then the article devolves into just pop culture cruft, before going completely off topic and talking about "funny numbers", which is a completely different topic.  Most of the sources are not actual reliable, third party sources, since they're things like episodes of fiction TV series.  In short, there are just enough reliable sources here to warrant it being considered notable, but the vast majority of the article needs to be removed or rewritten.  64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe this repeat nomination will prod some of us (who, me?) to improve this admittedly weak article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination's claims seem to be blatantly false and, as this is a repeat nomination, it seems to be vexatious per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the content starting with the Star Trek tidbit ought to go, but the topic is notable and easily meets WP:GNG through the first few references in the article. Daß &thinsp; Wölf 01:43, 24 December 2016 (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.