Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherently funny word (3rd 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. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 06:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently funny word

There have been two previous AfD discusssions on this, in 2004 (here) and 2006 (here), both of which resolved to keep the article. Given that over two years have passed and community consensus may have changed in that time, I'm re-nominating it for deletion. I don't have a view on its inclusion-worthiness myself, so I'm taking a neutral stance. SP-KP (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Narf! Delete because they left out words like "waffles". Seriously, though, this article is entirely unsourced and full of original research, blah blah blah, yakkidy smakkidy, and radda radda. And if you dion't think my vote is funny, then you're a spooty spoot-head. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} Keep per addition of sources. Still has problems with OR but eh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a weasel eating my broccoli... ha ha ha I kill me. Umm, I mean, delete. Unless some sourcing is added, I don't know of any way this can be anything but OR. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably the oldest article that I've ever seen nominated, and it illustrates how Wikipedia has changed over the course of time. The history confirms what you'd expect from an article that invites people to share their thoughts about words they think sound funny-- lots of additions and subtractions, heavy on quotes from cartoons. There's a paradox at work too-- a serious article about "inherently funny words" is inherently not funny; and an article about something being "inherently funny" can't be taken that seriously. The turning point for this one may have been when a picture of a cow on a utility pole was removed. The article isn't that amusing, and despite some worthy attempts to show psychological studies that confirm amusement at words with a "k" or "p" sound (plosives) it doesn't really work as an encyclopedia entry. I don't want to be the first to pick up the cinder block, but if the article is deleted, I will look at it as having been put out of its misery. Mandsford (talk) 20:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--. Doesn't seem encyclopedic. There are no sources to show that the phenomena exists.--213.114.184.8 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article contains extensive sourcing that professionals - comics, comedians, comic writers - have reason to believe the phenomena exists and, more importantly, act as if it does. If we have to prove that a phenomena exists in order to have an article about it, then God is in trouble. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I wonder if most objections would be silenced by changing to name to something more pompous-sounding, like Theories about inherently funny words. Over the years, I swear a lot of the people who hate this article see the title and assume it's merely people writing about words they think are funny. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a change of name would be a good idea. The title as is does seem to suggest that the article talks about words that are inherently funny rather than words which people have suggested are inherently funny. Basement12 (T.C) 00:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close the nomination. The nominator just reopened the debate because two years passed without providing any sort of reason why it should be deleted or why consensus would have changed. Obviously our rules have changed since the 2004 debate were personal opinion was given lots more weight, but the 2006 discussion still seems to hold. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Objection overruled, motion for summary judgment denied" I'm afraid we don't have a res judicata rule in Wikipedia. In law, one of the requirements is that the parties are the same as they had been in the prior litigation. Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has been nominated for deletion without any reason offered. The article is well referenced and is a valid concept in phonoaesthetics.
Keep. Over the long period of this article's existence, real references have been added to it. The nomination offers no reasons to delete it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While this article certainly needs a lot of work, it is an article about a real concept, and could most likely be improved to encyclopedic standards with the help of reliable sources, probably exist as many works have been written on the subject of comedy.--Unscented (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept is definitely an article worthy of inclusion, including discussion of the exponents of the art such as Douglas Adams, Spike Milligan, Monty Python etc, but it may be buried somewhere in all the other unreferenced rubbish that gets added. Basement12 (T.C) 00:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sneep --Mongreilf (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"...in heavenly pea-ece, snee-eep in heavenly peace." Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.