- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- List of surreal comedians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This completely unreferenced article is the very definition of listcruft. With no referenced definition of "surreal humor," the article can be populated with just anybody. A cursory glance at the list indicates that it's positively ludicrous. I know that "surreal" now has essentially no definition whatsoever, but this is an encyclopedia we're building and we have to have some standard of definition. Delete and salt against this abomination ever returning. The Old Jacobite The '45 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- You say there's no definition of "surreal humor" but it links to
Surreal humour, which is an attempt at a definition of surreal humour. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I said is that "surreal," in its common usage, including here on WP, has no definition. The Surreal humour article offers a vague attempt, at best, of its subject. And nothing in the awful Surreal humour article justifies the existence of this list article; the small number of such "comedians" could easily be included in that article, with references. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- You say there's no definition of "surreal humor" but it links to
Surreal humour, which is an attempt at a definition of surreal humour. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete All humor is somehow surreal. Mangoe ( talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable and indiscriminate list. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 08:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Gee whiz, TOJ, who pooped in your oatmeal? While I don't like unverified and indiscriminate lists any more than the next conscientious Wikipedian, and am even OK with deleting the list as it currently stands, I think such an extreme, emotional reaction is unwarranted ("salt against this abonation ever returning"). Unverified does not necessarily mean unverifiable, and WP:Deletionism is not the answer. Surreal humor is a very real thing, existing in classical literature and art, and modern comedy. Despite the fact the word "surreal" has virtually become meaningless white noise in modern public conversation, and that on first thought it may seem (as it originally did to me) that all humor depends on absurdity, surreal comedy is a publicly recognized genre of comedy, and several comedians or comedy groups are verifiably recognized as "surreal comedians". This includes British comedians such as the cast of The Goon Show and their descendants, including Monty Python and The Firesign Theatre. The Firesigns also refer to themselves as surrealists and use the word in some of their material. The list certainly could be restored someday, properly written referencing surreal humor and cited. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Emotion has nothing to do with it. If the very few comedians on this list who are relevant can be cited, they can be included in an improved version of the Surreal humour article. But, nothing you've said here argues for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for the same sort of nonsense with which it is currently populated. ---
The Old Jacobite
The '45
15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, I am not arguing for keeping the list, just against deleting it with prejudice. You and I are in agreement that the best course of action is to delete the list page, and move the few, verified examples into Surreal humour. Many list pages on Wikipedia are prone to being "targets for this sort of nonsense", which I think is an endemic symptom of our "List-class" rating system, which prevents lists from being quality-rated (and thus being given attention to verifiability) the same as other articles; but that's for another project discussion page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Emotion has nothing to do with it. If the very few comedians on this list who are relevant can be cited, they can be included in an improved version of the Surreal humour article. But, nothing you've said here argues for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for the same sort of nonsense with which it is currently populated. ---
The Old Jacobite
The '45
15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete- yep, this is pretty blatant listcruft. It's inherently WP:OR since there's no clear and solid definition of the term, nor any sources describing any of the people on the list as such. Reyk YO! 14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Merge with Surreal humour. A brief list of examples on the surreal humour page with sources for each individual would suffice. I don't think the list should just be deleted; examples of surreal comedians add to the clarity and understanding on the definition of surreal humour. Nanophosis ( talk) 16:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, especially regarding the fact that any comedian could be added to the list without contributing anything to a reader. I disagree with the merge proposal, currently Gilbert Gottfried is listed - that's a pretty far stretch, IMHO. I do not see the purpose of merging such a large list of names into Surreal humour. Ifnord ( talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh...No one is proposing that the entire unverified list as it now stands be merged into the article; only that a few, select, well-verified (that's the real problem, isn't it?) examples be merged into the article. I can name a few off the top of my head:
Ernie Kovacs;
The Goon Show, and their descendents
Monty Python and
The Firesign Theatre; maybe
The Goodies. Any more than that certainly isn't necessary.
JustinTime55 (
talk)
17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the inclusion of Gilbert Gottfried is a stretch, and I didn't mean to imply with my merge vote that the entire list as it stands now should be included in Surreal humour. As JustinTime55 stated, a select few of well-cited examples from the current list could be included, while the poor choices (I seem to recall Will Ferrell on the list...) could be omitted. I apologize for the confusion. Nanophosis ( talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh...No one is proposing that the entire unverified list as it now stands be merged into the article; only that a few, select, well-verified (that's the real problem, isn't it?) examples be merged into the article. I can name a few off the top of my head:
Ernie Kovacs;
The Goon Show, and their descendents
Monty Python and
The Firesign Theatre; maybe
The Goodies. Any more than that certainly isn't necessary.
JustinTime55 (
talk)
17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I clicked on the first five links. Three of the linked-to articles noted Surreal comedy in the infoboxes. Of the two that didn't, Rowan Atkinson can be sourced with Encyclopedia of Television, and Bo Burnham from Esquire. So, we're already calling these guys surreal (or could be with known good sourcing). It's worth reviewing the other entries to verify sourcing (and update their infoboxes as needed), but I think that puts to bed the listcruft issue. If any are found that can't be reliably sourced as being surreal, then take them off the list. But that's not a reason to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Roy's analysis above is spot on. Usually we analyze such categories in category discussions and say: "hey, this is is slightly fuzzy for a category but a real comedy genre. Let's listify." Here it is already listified. In other words: not broken, do not fix. gidonb ( talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of RoySmith's keep argument that came in late in the discussion.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of RoySmith's keep argument that came in late in the discussion.
- That someone listed "surreal comedy" in the infoboxes of some of these comedians is irrelevant. All that matters is how the term is defined (in this case, no definition at all, as stated above) and how it is referenced in the respective articles. As I said above, the few comedians who can be defined as "surreal," with refs to support the claim, can be listed at the Surreal humour article. That is no argument for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for unreferenced rubbish. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. A "List of Comedic comedians" would be only slightly less encyclopedic. I note also that the concept of a comedian being 'reliably sourced' as surreal is...well, you know. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. By the broad surreal definition given in the article, most comedians would qualify. George Carlin? Bill Murray? (Sur)really? Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Should this be renamed to List of surrealist comedians, assuming there are comedians who specialize in surrealism? Surrealist (occupation) seems to have a lot of categories. If the list is going to be kept, it would be thought of as a category and require references showing that it is a defining characteristic of the comedian's work, and be mentioned in secondary sources as a surrealist artist, and not something they've dabbled with as most comedians have pretty much done something extraordinary or stimulate imagination. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:57, 27 January 2018 (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.
- 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
- List of surreal comedians ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This completely unreferenced article is the very definition of listcruft. With no referenced definition of "surreal humor," the article can be populated with just anybody. A cursory glance at the list indicates that it's positively ludicrous. I know that "surreal" now has essentially no definition whatsoever, but this is an encyclopedia we're building and we have to have some standard of definition. Delete and salt against this abomination ever returning. The Old Jacobite The '45 19:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- You say there's no definition of "surreal humor" but it links to
Surreal humour, which is an attempt at a definition of surreal humour. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- What I said is that "surreal," in its common usage, including here on WP, has no definition. The Surreal humour article offers a vague attempt, at best, of its subject. And nothing in the awful Surreal humour article justifies the existence of this list article; the small number of such "comedians" could easily be included in that article, with references. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- You say there's no definition of "surreal humor" but it links to
Surreal humour, which is an attempt at a definition of surreal humour. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
14:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- delete All humor is somehow surreal. Mangoe ( talk) 20:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Unverifiable and indiscriminate list. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 ( talk) 00:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 08:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Gee whiz, TOJ, who pooped in your oatmeal? While I don't like unverified and indiscriminate lists any more than the next conscientious Wikipedian, and am even OK with deleting the list as it currently stands, I think such an extreme, emotional reaction is unwarranted ("salt against this abonation ever returning"). Unverified does not necessarily mean unverifiable, and WP:Deletionism is not the answer. Surreal humor is a very real thing, existing in classical literature and art, and modern comedy. Despite the fact the word "surreal" has virtually become meaningless white noise in modern public conversation, and that on first thought it may seem (as it originally did to me) that all humor depends on absurdity, surreal comedy is a publicly recognized genre of comedy, and several comedians or comedy groups are verifiably recognized as "surreal comedians". This includes British comedians such as the cast of The Goon Show and their descendants, including Monty Python and The Firesign Theatre. The Firesigns also refer to themselves as surrealists and use the word in some of their material. The list certainly could be restored someday, properly written referencing surreal humor and cited. JustinTime55 ( talk) 15:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Emotion has nothing to do with it. If the very few comedians on this list who are relevant can be cited, they can be included in an improved version of the Surreal humour article. But, nothing you've said here argues for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for the same sort of nonsense with which it is currently populated. ---
The Old Jacobite
The '45
15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- As I said, I am not arguing for keeping the list, just against deleting it with prejudice. You and I are in agreement that the best course of action is to delete the list page, and move the few, verified examples into Surreal humour. Many list pages on Wikipedia are prone to being "targets for this sort of nonsense", which I think is an endemic symptom of our "List-class" rating system, which prevents lists from being quality-rated (and thus being given attention to verifiability) the same as other articles; but that's for another project discussion page. JustinTime55 ( talk) 16:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Emotion has nothing to do with it. If the very few comedians on this list who are relevant can be cited, they can be included in an improved version of the Surreal humour article. But, nothing you've said here argues for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for the same sort of nonsense with which it is currently populated. ---
The Old Jacobite
The '45
15:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete- yep, this is pretty blatant listcruft. It's inherently WP:OR since there's no clear and solid definition of the term, nor any sources describing any of the people on the list as such. Reyk YO! 14:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Merge with Surreal humour. A brief list of examples on the surreal humour page with sources for each individual would suffice. I don't think the list should just be deleted; examples of surreal comedians add to the clarity and understanding on the definition of surreal humour. Nanophosis ( talk) 16:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, especially regarding the fact that any comedian could be added to the list without contributing anything to a reader. I disagree with the merge proposal, currently Gilbert Gottfried is listed - that's a pretty far stretch, IMHO. I do not see the purpose of merging such a large list of names into Surreal humour. Ifnord ( talk) 16:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh...No one is proposing that the entire unverified list as it now stands be merged into the article; only that a few, select, well-verified (that's the real problem, isn't it?) examples be merged into the article. I can name a few off the top of my head:
Ernie Kovacs;
The Goon Show, and their descendents
Monty Python and
The Firesign Theatre; maybe
The Goodies. Any more than that certainly isn't necessary.
JustinTime55 (
talk)
17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- I certainly agree that the inclusion of Gilbert Gottfried is a stretch, and I didn't mean to imply with my merge vote that the entire list as it stands now should be included in Surreal humour. As JustinTime55 stated, a select few of well-cited examples from the current list could be included, while the poor choices (I seem to recall Will Ferrell on the list...) could be omitted. I apologize for the confusion. Nanophosis ( talk) 18:24, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sigh...No one is proposing that the entire unverified list as it now stands be merged into the article; only that a few, select, well-verified (that's the real problem, isn't it?) examples be merged into the article. I can name a few off the top of my head:
Ernie Kovacs;
The Goon Show, and their descendents
Monty Python and
The Firesign Theatre; maybe
The Goodies. Any more than that certainly isn't necessary.
JustinTime55 (
talk)
17:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I clicked on the first five links. Three of the linked-to articles noted Surreal comedy in the infoboxes. Of the two that didn't, Rowan Atkinson can be sourced with Encyclopedia of Television, and Bo Burnham from Esquire. So, we're already calling these guys surreal (or could be with known good sourcing). It's worth reviewing the other entries to verify sourcing (and update their infoboxes as needed), but I think that puts to bed the listcruft issue. If any are found that can't be reliably sourced as being surreal, then take them off the list. But that's not a reason to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Roy's analysis above is spot on. Usually we analyze such categories in category discussions and say: "hey, this is is slightly fuzzy for a category but a real comedy genre. Let's listify." Here it is already listified. In other words: not broken, do not fix. gidonb ( talk) 22:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of RoySmith's keep argument that came in late in the discussion.
Relisting comment: For further consideration of RoySmith's keep argument that came in late in the discussion.
- That someone listed "surreal comedy" in the infoboxes of some of these comedians is irrelevant. All that matters is how the term is defined (in this case, no definition at all, as stated above) and how it is referenced in the respective articles. As I said above, the few comedians who can be defined as "surreal," with refs to support the claim, can be listed at the Surreal humour article. That is no argument for keeping this list, which will be a constant target for unreferenced rubbish. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. A "List of Comedic comedians" would be only slightly less encyclopedic. I note also that the concept of a comedian being 'reliably sourced' as surreal is...well, you know. JoJo Anthrax ( talk) 18:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. By the broad surreal definition given in the article, most comedians would qualify. George Carlin? Bill Murray? (Sur)really? Clarityfiend ( talk) 00:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Should this be renamed to List of surrealist comedians, assuming there are comedians who specialize in surrealism? Surrealist (occupation) seems to have a lot of categories. If the list is going to be kept, it would be thought of as a category and require references showing that it is a defining characteristic of the comedian's work, and be mentioned in secondary sources as a surrealist artist, and not something they've dabbled with as most comedians have pretty much done something extraordinary or stimulate imagination. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 00:57, 27 January 2018 (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.