Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Anti-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 of the debate was keep.

[edit] Anti-humor

Sounds like a neologism. The term is used online in some discussion forums and Wikipedia clones. Every reference to the term in the Wikipedia is the work of User:Andrevan. Fishal 22:40, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I didn't come up with the term, nor is it recent - it's existed at least since the heyday of Andy Kaufman, a pioneer of it. (I still intend to expand the article if it gets through VfD.) You can see reference to it in a few places: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Frankly, I think it's notable and well-established, so I vote to Keep. Andre (talk) 23:38, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)
• I agree with Andrevan, the term has existed for a long time. I know I've heard it before. But what I want to know is, what happens when humor and anti-humor come into contact with each other? Bearcat 00:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • I assume that's a keep vote? Andre (talk) 00:03, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
• I vote keep. It seems pretty legit or whatever. Ow. --SMWhat 00:56, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• I also vote keep. This is definately legit. MarkPNeyer 02:46, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep —siroχo 00:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Too much time is being spend in here instead of making articles. VFD should occure once a week/month. --ShaunMacPherson 19:01, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for me as well. This is informative, and seems rather accurate.--Kaleb.G 19:50, 2004 Oct 29 (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.