Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ballmer Peak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:15, 17 April 2024

Ballmer Peak

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable - the article is a 3 sentence stub about a joke from an xkcd comic, with two of the three sources used being from xkcd itself and the xkcd wiki. Doing a google search, it appears that there's little else about the topic besides the Observer article, outside of blog posts and other self-published sources. — Chevvin 22:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Distillery using this name, nothing for the web comic/meme thing that this article is about. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a section in Xkcd due to being notable enough for one source. Not notable enough for an article. -1ctinus📝🗨 23:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Xkcd article for reasons stated above: that multiple sources are used suggests the topic is notable enough for inclusion. RyanAl6 (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: The page Alcohol-related brain damage covers the idea of the Ballmer Peak pretty well. Bluehalooo (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ballmer Peak is not mentioned at the proposed redirect target. Normally redirects should be mentioned at the target. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ballmer Peak is a humorous and intentionally incorrect claim contradicting the Alcohol-related brain damage page. It makes no sense as a redirect to there. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear it's wrong. We have academic studies to that effect... Hobit (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Webcomics and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong~~ delete – There's nothing here, just a single study and report that uses the term. Should not be merged into xkcd either, that article already struggles with the many things that grew out of xkcd over the years. (The Observer article technically doesn't even really mention the webcomic btw). This topic probably doesn't meet medical inclusion criteria; it's quite serious to tell people (based on just a single study) that drinking alcohol can make you productive. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As argued above, Merge is obviously the right choice. Athel cb (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep
- [1] is an academic study which news reports [2] [3] have entire articles reporting on wrt this term.
- [4] is another study which looks at the same issue and references the topic.
- There are plenty of reliable, independent news articles which define the term. For example Tech Crunch and Venture Beat.
- There are books which define and explain the term. For example How We Sipped, Danced, and Stumbled Our Way to Civilization, Do Zombies Dream of Undead Sheep? and The Healthy Writer.

This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study. Way over our inclusion guideline. Hobit (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- @Hobit: That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet WP:MEDRS... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related. The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea. And we prove notability by sources. But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 :This has an academic paper, two news articles that cover that academic paper and many many many other references including books and another academic study.  Way over our inclusion guideline. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 14:47, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 **{{ping|Hobit}} That's a few more sources than I found. I'm worried if these tech sources and pop-science books don't meet [[WP:MEDRS]]... ~[[User:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#005080">Maplestrip/Mable</span>]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#700090">chat</span>]]) 19:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
+***Fair, but I don't think that bar is a bit high for an article covering a meme, even if the meme is health related.  The point here isn't that it's true, the point is that it's a notable idea.  And we prove notability by sources.  But Medicine is something I've only edited a bit around here, so I'll defer to the experts.    [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 20:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 *<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine|list of Medicine-related deletion discussions]]. ~[[User:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#005080">Maplestrip/Mable</span>]] ([[User talk:Maplestrip|<span style="color:#700090">chat</span>]]) 19:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)</small>