Template:Did you know nominations/Computer rage

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by 4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Computer rage

(

)

... that computer rage can be caused by faulty software, computer crashes, and a perceived violation of social norms?

5x expanded by Sshaw9 (talk). Self-nominated at 04:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but this appears to be a neologism inspired by someone's PowerPoint presentation. Miscellaneous articles describing examples of people getting mad (often humorously) don't rise to a recognized cultural phenomenon without a RS or two, at least, giving it serious discussion by this name. EEng (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

@EEng: this article does appear to have reliable sourcing. The question is whether it is SYNTH or OR. If it is, it should be nominated for deletion. Please advise. Yoninah (talk) 23:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH would be another way to see it, but either way it's missing serious sources discussing this as a recognized phenomenon (and I don't mean powerpoint presentations [1][2]). Many of the sources are silly e.g. the survey "showing" that x% of user frustration is due to insufficient menory -- sponsored (surprise!) by a memory-upgrade supplier [3]. Others are obvious filler and blogposts [4][5]. I honestly haven't the energy to take the lead of an AfD nom just now, so for the moment I'd like to hear what others think. EEng (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. Nice to say hi to the old DYK gang now and then!

I don't know whether or not you are right about the sources (but I suspect you are), I have not looked at them in any depth. However, even if you don't want to open an AFD, you should at least place maintenance templates on the article highlighting the problems. That in itself should stop the DYK nomination going forward unless the problems are fixed.

I also suspect that an AFD would fail (ie the article may be salvagable). I am seeing quite a lot of occurences of the term in books. Some are quite lightweight [6], but others discuss it more seriously as a real pathology in man-machine interactions [7][8]. This book claims to know the history of the term and when it was coined. Other books discuss it from the point of view of business efficiency [9]. In short, a well-referenced article on this subject could be written.

I would also say that if DYK wants articles written and sourced to GA or FA standards it needs to give editors a lot longer than seven days to write them. SpinningSpark 19:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally with you re the stupid newness requirement at DYK, which guarantees that many articles linked from the main page will be incomplete and sloppy. But I gave up that debate long ago. It's all moot now given BMS' comments below, but for the record the "history of the term" source clearly doesn't know what it's talking about, since it claims the term was coined in 1999, but Ngrams shows significant usage beginning in the early 1980s. EEng (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

While there are some good points about maintenance templates and the like in Spinningspark's comments, taking a look at the basic DYK requirements I see that this is an article that was expanded on November 19 but not nominated until November 30, and only 3.6x expanded from 2236 prose characters to 8006 prose characters: it was nominated four days late and is 3174 prose characters short. In addition, its nominator hasn't edited on Wikipedia since December 5 and has not responded to this review despite talk-page notification on December 18. I'm marking the nomination for immediate closure. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)