Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherently funny word 2

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inherently funny word

No word is inherently funny, it is culturally constructed. This article is biased in concept and largely original research in execution. Plus, it doesn't include "pig" which I think is hilarious, but it does include "giggle" which is not even mildlly amusing, conjuring thoughts of vacuous gum-chewing schoolgirls on buses. If anyone can find me an article in any paper encyclopaedia, however big, on "inherently funny word" I will withdraw this nomination. Unless it's the Encyclopaedia Cruftannica. In which case we'll have found a copyvio. Survived VfD back in 2004 on the grounds that it was funny - as far as I can tel this is no longer policy, I checked WP:FUNNY and found nothing. Guy 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Based on some of the references, it seems like this article could exist, albeit in a possibly different format. The fact that funniness if social constructed, for me at least, increases the need for an article which discusses that, provided it can be referenced. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't find the words in the list funny, therefore they are not inherently funny, therefore the article is false and it must be deleted. --Ruby 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Everything that is unreferenced should of course be removed, but the use of certain words as "inherently funny" by comedians (and the response of their audience) can be documented, and probably there is some more research on humor that can be cited to source this article better. The intro might need a complete rewrite, though. Kusma (討論) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, but not as is. This article is one of the centerpieces of wikipedia's humour section alongside Unusual articles and List of unusual deaths, but it's a messy article and needs work. Somebody needs to give it a thorough cleanup. Add some sources, and delete everything unsupported by references. Night Gyr 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with ref's -Who said this word is inherently funny and what not. -AKMask 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for some reason the idea of this article gets under a few people's skin. But it's a legitimate concept to discuss. Unfortunately, it's also a concept that draws a lot of fly-by edits (I know something funny - let's add it!), hence the messiness. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Whether there is any such thing as an inherently funny word is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Otherwise one could make the same case for deleting Ghost. The point is that certain words have been characterized as being inherently funny, as the article documents quite well. Unusual articles like this are part of what makes Wikipedia cool. dbtfz^talk 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, and smak JzG will some inherently funny word like Pantyhose, bubbly or giggles... because he I feel he may have skiped a couple steps. You know, some wise men once said to me, if you think it need verifying, then put the verify sign on it. Don't just delete it. If you think it's NPOV then put that one on it too. And only delete it if you really want to. However I may be swayed for other reason to delete this. For example this may simply be an enumaration of several words. However considereing we have a definition for funny page,Funny little itinerant blip, Funny little ugly fat fellow, Funny wagon (what they will soon be putting me in if I continue leaving such odd comments to JzG and he continues on with a double standard, while they bring me to the funny house)... but then again maybe this will all be a Funny story from a funny man from Canada hey! That will add his french Funny foreign squigle when he write it in his funny book talking about funny business experiences with a guy name JzG. Or perhaps instead... keeping it all withinfunny fantasy that is funilly enough not the funniest joke but may add some smiles and funny faces. (Darn! I couldn't find inherently funny word though!)--CyclePat 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't verify a word being inherently funny, because funny is a subjective concept to start with. Oh, and pantyhose is not funny at all. Unlike trouser, which cracks me up every time (and leaves others utterly bewildered). See what I mean? Guy 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per User:DavidWBrooks. Adrian Lamo ·· 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 03:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete No word is inherently funny, only its meaning can be. Jim62sch 03:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

commnent prove it. And once you do. Add that fact to the article with you source. --CyclePat 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It a number of people lack the required sense of humour. But I doubt even they can deny that, for example, banana is a word used often in jokes and the like (without a suitable context, just because of the word and nothing else). Basically the word has to be trivial in meaning (and thus it's meaning isn't funny at all), it usually sounds "awkward" or "foreign" or plain silly. And if you mention it at one point in a conversation for no reason at all it should be funny. Replacing it with textdocument or something equally mundane should not be (as) funny. In any case, there's comedians who believe in them...there are plenty of other people who "believe" in them, and hence it should be pretty obvious that an explanation is required for those that come across it without knowing what it is. Not to mention many, many articles reference it for good reason. Rygir 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It is neither Original Research - all of it is what other people have said are inherently funny words - nor POV. A fine example of a slightly off-the-wall topic being handles very well. Batmanand 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not encylopedic and more of an opinion peice. TVXPert 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. This has to be one of the five worst articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I hated it before it was brought here. There's no excuse for this kind of garbage. It's original research, it's stuff made up in school one day, it's not notable, it aims to be a how-to on stand-up comedy. This is a pile of reeking garbage that would make Satan weep. It makes this encyclopedia look like it was written by moronic nosepicking fourth-graders. I can't emphasize enough how bad this is. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Come on, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kusma. Siva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete original research/essay format. not encylopedic. Ncsaint 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Conditional keep - this article is highly misleading. If the article can differentiate between "inherently funny words" as an attempt to be funny. There is a huge different between that and scholarly language and psychology journals stating that this concept is true. So, I believe the subject may have been broached by enough comedians to merit its inclusion as a well known joke... but as a truly scholarly subject I have seen no evidence yet... and if this article doesn't differentiate between the two then it's seriously misleading. gren グレン 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - bad title, smells like original research, POV, and in general unencyclopedic. Renata 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Kusma. Rufous 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as a perfectly valid article that may need some cleanup and verify, but in no way merits deletion. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:OR, WP:V. —Ruud 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, how is any of this information useful/meaningful/relevant in a non-original research/POV way? None of these words are "inherently" funny except to English-speakers, anyways. What do I need an encyclopedia article to argue for the idea that the word "bassoon" is "inherently funny"? Incredibly stupid article (even if it were retitled "funny words" or "words used frequently by comedians.") Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block

• Precisely. Not only is tenoroon much funnier, so is bassinet. In my opinion. and there is no way this can get around the fact that it's entirely based on opinion. Guy 13:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete! or, alternatively, merge - sillyness. They're not funny, maybe some of the material could be merged to an article such as humour...But on its own... no. -- Greaser 06:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep — but remove anything that is original research or unreferenced, of course. -- Jao 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Kept before, keep it again. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep since a) this has been kept before and b) it's just perfect fodder for WP:UA and c) there may be good sources to support this, if not on academic level then on, um, some comedic level. Though, the article definitely may need cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but somehow this article needs to be 'steamlined' and broken into a few sub headings. Inherently Funny is a legitimate comedic concern and valid considertion for many comedians. Steve Allen has written on the subject and I recall Milton Berle mentioning it as far back as the 1960s. Cincinatti is a funny word, Dallas is not. Maybe "k" is funny by association: Shecky Green, Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Ernie Kovaks. At any rate, the concept deserves some more research and citations. John Sinclair, Salt Lake City (har!)
• Trivia: I have seen somewhere that Jimbo Wales locked this article for a few hours for the purpose of using it as a demonstration of Wikipedia on a TV show. (I'll be happy to try to source this if anyone thinks their vote is affected by it. It looks to me as if this is going "no consensus".) No vote from me. AndyJones 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My vote is unlikely to change, but I would be curious to see more details about this. Turnstep 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, I think this is all I ever knew. It just stuck in my mind for some reason. See the penultimate item and its edit summary. (Possibly that item will have been pushed to the next page by the time the AfD closes.) AndyJones 09:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete "Funny" is entirely a POV. If it weren't, "table", which I've always considered an extremely funnt word, would be on the list. :Denni ☯ 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: Yesterday's Globe and mail, february 20, 2006, page A14, Section, Social Studies (A daily miscellany of Information by micheal Kesteron (MKesterton@globeandmail.ca)) cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."

Again, Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly have are opinions from people. (POV's) Inherently most articles are full of POV's. Does that give us the right to delete them? I don't think so. --CyclePat 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: perhaps, "table" is a funny word for you, but if you have not written a published book or can't find a published book on that subject (ie.: on the inherent funnyness of that word) than it wouldn't meet the wikipedia standard of inclusion based on the WP:NOR (Wikipedia No original research... and if that is or was the case then we should nullify this entire process, start an entirelly new deletion process with those accusations.) --CyclePat 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here, but there are no sources attesting to the inherent funniness of words mentioned in the article, "weasel", for instance, which, IMHO, makes most of this article OR. If this article is to be kept, it needs serious editing and sourcing. Denni ☯ 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but edit drastically. It should exist where 'Inherrently funny word' is a quote rather than a topic, as comedians have spoken on this subject and given examples. I suggest it should begin with something like 'An 'Inherrently funny word' is a concept which has been proposed by many comedians, including (etc), and featuring words like (etc)'. No word is inherrently funny, it's all relative. --Luke44 21:41 22 February 2006 (GMT)
• Keep Interesting article, though per Luke44 and others it could use a little cleanup/organization. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep nice article.  Grue  21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article holds a great deal of information on a concept which clearly has been addressed many times in popular media, as seen in the number of sources it cites. It doesn't try to establish a deffinative list of all "inherently funny" words, although the opinion of profession commedians could probably be taken as expert opinion, and thus qualify for inclusion, as has been done. If someone feels that the article is trying to create an inherently incomple and potentially POV list, then it could be cleaned up, but since it is clearly a subject that has been addressed there is no reason to delete it. After all, there are articles on consipracy theories, alien abduction and pseudosciences that may not actually physically exist, but the idea is prevalent enough that in can be reasonable addressed. After all, all of these quotes are verifiable. I've read Dave Barry's piece where he claims weasel is an inherently funny word, for instance. He certainly qualifies as an expert, and thus it's not OR. Icelight 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I am not a member of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I signed up for an account before, but I don't remember my user name or my password. I have to say that I have the exact opposite opinion on this article that Mr. Brian G. Crawford has. The argument here seems to be that, if this article concerns the subject of silliness, then the article itself must be silly. Nothing is empirically funny, at all, ever. It is -ALWAYS- culturally constructed. That is the nature of humor itself. The fact is that humor is difficult to analyze because you don't know whether something is funny until it makes you laugh. "Inherent funniness" is the concept by which something is simply considered funny, and therefore preferable to things that are not funny. In the satirical online game, The Kingdom of Loathing, the clothing choices for player characters are "pants" and "hat". I am not aware of an official stated reason for clothing being limited to those items, but it is my opinion that experts on humor will agree that "pants" and "hat" are the funniest names for articles of clothing. Certainly, some people may argue that "socks" is funny or that player characters should be allowed to choose "galoshes" or "underpants" or something similarly silly. In this respect, humor can be considered entirely objective. Some people may not find any words to be inherently funny at all, just like how I am fairly sure I have not laughed at an episode of "Seinfeld" at all, not even once. Those who want this article deleted seem to be convinced that humor is not worthy of intelligent analysis because of its subjectivity or its strong ties to the culture of those involved with both producing the humor and laughing at it. I myself firmly believe that it is because of these things that humor is a worthy topic of discussion. There won't be articles discussing in detail every form of humor in legitimate mainstream paper encyclopedias, because humor is a very difficult topic. However, if this article ends up being deleted (being edited to conform to a higher standard of quality is quite acceptable) it will severely hurt my faith in humanity. I just thought I'd throw in my own two cents. --65.13.17.229 07:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [Some guy named Dave]

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.