Talk:Geek canon

Descriptions for examples

I've added some descriptions to FPS gaming items on the list. Anything on the list should be describing why such-and-such should/would be considered canon, so readers can get a feel for what makes something canon. It would be nice to get examples that describe the various reasons something can be considered, so we don't just repeat the same reasons for every item.

For example, I stated in one of my descriptions that being the first in a genre or causing a mod community to spring up were causes for a game to be considered canon, but this could be factored out to the main discussion.

I think the main discussion could be rewritten, as it rambles on a bit.

—Daelin, 2004–10–16, 09:26 EDT

I've tightened up the language a bit, and did some general clean-up. I might be tempted to place this on a list of VfD articles -- I really don't see what purpose it serves as is, but I will let others make that call. - Scooter 05:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A list?

If we're going to include a list, the article shouldn't try to list every item that could be within the canon. It should instead focus on either 1) items most any geek should at least be aware of/have exposure to, and/or 2) critical items for specialized topic geeks. e.g., I'd argue any geek should be aware of and have some knowledge of the details of, even if they've never read/played: Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland, the Jabberwocky poem, Dungeons and Dragons, and Doom. These are critical works in their genres, which shaped all following works, and are still redeemable today. Things get fuzzier when you get even as far as The Illuminatus! Trilogy. Do we include The Church of the Subgenius™?

On the other hand due to its nature, this list would be pretty damned boring if it didn't include more fringe stuff than not. Suggestions? --Daelin 00:35, 9 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I find that the style of this article is rather refreshing, but there is no mention or analysis of sources within the text or at the bottom of the article, with some exceptions like the paragraph on the Lensman series and a short mention of why Neuromancer is important. Without the sources this article and its talk page become a discussion between geeks or between geek observers, which is something very far from the nature of an encyclopedic entry. In other words, you have to state why a particular work gets into the canon. This article sometimes goes towards that but stops short. For instance, the Lensman series by "doc" Smith is mentioned. But why that particular series of books and not others? A good foundation is Levy's book Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution (I am placing the ref at the bottom) which mentions the importance of that series in the 1950s at MIT, a traditional home of modern geekdom. Does an article in Wired on a particular item of geek canon mean that it should be included or is it the reverse since Wired is often very late in getting some things. This should probably get a mini-analysis. Is blog activity an arbiter of inclusion in the canon? Why? There are other categories of sources: Some elements of the geek canon might be too fluid to be in books, so then you count the Web sites and discuss this with other elements. Etc, etc. AlainV 06:46, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

I'm going to ramble on for a bit:

This is why I think it might be better to just not include a list at all, and to cite works as examples of what can be or is frequently thought of as canon. A work never "gets into the canon" because there is no authoritative list for it to be accepted on. A work can be perceived as canon for numerous miscellaneous reasons, but most commonly that work (or works, or author) 1) Has had an obvious and direct influence on similar works (Asimov's three (four) laws of robotics) or 2) is extremely widely read, so that you can expect to hear references to the work in conversation.

The former is subject to an objective literary analysis, and geeks will try and trace the origins of ideas in their favorite authors' works. However, it has been my experience that geeks on the whole tend to reject the very-post-modern literary establishment's idea that every single idea has already been thought of and every work is, at best, innovative restyling of something someone already did. The buck tends to stop at directly related ideas, with possible nods to precursor influential ideas.

The later (extremely widely read) isn't really a solid criteria. Some works can get widely read by geeks and nobody will reference it in conversation. I've never read Lord of the Flies, and I've never heard any obvious reference to it, but apparently a lot of geeks I know have read it. It may have an affect on the culture below the dialog, however. I can't say. 1984, on the other hand, gets lots of reference, even by people who have never read it. Also, everyone knows that Soylent Green is people. Anyhow, this is where you can get a lot of debate, and a lot of real variation between communities. For example, among FPS game geeks, you'd expect everyone to know about Daikatana, and possibly to have played the demo. However, if you look at a differently oriented geek community, it might not be reasonable to expect that knowledge.

An authoritative source doesn't make a work canon. It's almost like science, where you don't need an authority to tell you that Euclid's Elements is canon to Mathematics. Anyone can find out that work came early, was widely read for centuries, and had a tremendous impact. You don't need a literary analysis by established critics to tell you that the ideas in it are fundamental, or that most branches of mathematics can directly trace their roots from study of that work. However, in the objective geek canon the hereditary lines are rarely as top-down as in the case of Asimov. Dreams of Electric Sheep became Blade Runner, but where else did it go, and which was more influential? Star Trek is rife with similar examples--episodes based on a classic or not so classic SF short story. Is the short story or the Trek episode "the real canon"? It's debatable, and rather pointless to debate it. Geeks will leave the equation right there, like an expression of two sine waves at different frequencies. You can't simplify it further: This work was influential, and can directly trace its ideas to X and Y--literary critics will simplify it, authoritatively, and essentially declare pi to be 3 or 4, depending on the authority. (So they hold councils to avoid embarrassment, like the church, blah blah...)

So, perhaps the article should be rewritten. I used to Western Canon article as a basis, but it's apparent that they're not similar enough for that. Perhaps the article should even be mostly deleted, as "geek canon" tends to be more of a meta canon that includes (depending on geek community): western canon, sf canon, hacker (trad. def) canon, gaming canon, etc. The later two are also fluid, and peer defined rather than authoritatively defined, like I've tried to illustrate about geek canon.

--Daelin 03:28, 13 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What would geek interests be?

Would things like comic books, manga, and hobby games fall in to the geek canon? I would think fantasy is as popular among geeks as science-fiction is (LOTR, specifically)

Possible entries

Novels

Video Games

Pong
Counter-Strike
Halo video game series
Doom
Ultima
Ultima Online
Everquest
Might & Magic
Dragon Quest
Final Fantasy
Starcraft
MUD, RPG, MMORPG, FPS, RTS, and other genres that have significantly impacted geekism

Movies

Television

Mystery Science Theater 3000
Transformers
Futurama (heavily based on geek references and in-jokes)
The Simpsons (geek references here as well)

Nonfiction

Masters of Doom
Silicon Snakeoil by Cliff Stoll

Magazines

Popular Science

Websites

Google
Ars Technica
Slashdot
Fark
Newgrounds
Anandtech
4chan
Misc geek communities, blogs, messageboards, etc

Software

More possible entries

Arthur C. Clarke: 2001 - The Space Odyssey
Monty Python (tv show + movies)
The C programming language
Anything written by Terry Pratchett

Some Revisions.

I did a somewhat substantial rewrite, although there's still more work needed. Some commentary on the reasoning behind it:

The article weirdly undercut itself early on. The fact that geek culture is (allegedly) anti-authoritarian does not change a whit about whether a factual list of commonly-referenced artistic works can be compiled. It merely makes it difficult for there to be one all-knowing granter of that list, or for a list to be easily acknowledged as correct. So I slimmed up the self-doubting comments to a disclaimer at the beginning. Hopefully that will prove acceptable.
- That said, after saying that the article is probably hopelessly subjective (which doesn't have to be true), it proceeds to make some very bold claims, like "The best description of what a "real world" work environment is "The Soul Of A New Machine" by Tracy Kidder." Let's be careful with that unless it's something truly accepted.
The word "articles," while correct, might introduce a bit of confusion between Wikipedia-articles and articles-articles. So I tried to use "works" as in "creative works" instead.
As for specific deletions, I see this not as a "neat underappreciated gems" article that mentions great art works that have been overlooked; these lists are really nice, mind, but extraordinarily hard to do objectively. Saying something is good authoritatively is hard; but saying something is important and influential is a little easier.
- I removed Star Trek from the movie list because the first one wasn't exactly well-received, and it's already mentioned in television (which was probably more influential). It also seemed a bit clunky to add "parts of the Star Trek movie series" in the middle of the list, though that would be accurate.
- Azumanga Daioh is surely a good show, but it hasn't achieved anywhere near the level of cultural saturation that Cowboy Bebop or Evangelion have.
- I owned an Amiga myself, but I think that's a standard subculture, hardly Geek canon. Geeks are more than just computer-buffs, and Amiga-buffs were a subset of a subset. If we do include it, it should probably go in some computing section, not quite "gadgets" (which would be more like ).
- A possible deletion for later: Does The Bard's Tale II really count? I'm out of my league on some of the early computer gaming parts, but I don't recall the Bard's Tale really being mentioned in the same league as classics like Civilization. The fact that the sequel is used seems even more suspicious... but maybe I'm just totally off. For all the self-congratulation about being in the present (which is less shocking when you consider that this subculture is basically only ~50 years old), the current list seems somewhat slanted towards 1975-1985.
- Same with Alan Lee. I've never heard of him, and don't recall what little art there was to the versions of LOTR I read to be anything particularly special... but maybe I read a different edition. I'll assume that I'm just wrong on this count, but just registering this in case others who know better also think that Mr. Lee is more of a side figure.
I'm not entirely certain about the random FPS interlude within gaming. As part of the current whole, I'd say it's out of place with the level of detail, but it's possible that the article will grow in other places to make it seem not out of place.
Anything else to go in the RPG section that would be universally accepted? Shadowrun, despite being somewhat niche, can stay since it massively rips of Neuromancer which we already have listed as an important inspiration. I was trying to come up with an appropriate "companion" to go with it for an "and" block between two other competitors to D&D, but the market thins a bit. Call of Cthulu? Mage: the Ascension? Nothing else seemed to have both the popularity and cred required to go in a canon article, but maybe I'm forgetting something or selling it short. SnowFire 19:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion

Hi, I'm from Third Opinion, and this article was listed there three days ago. Has the argument cleared up or is my opinion still valueable? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Article Focus.

This article is mostly unsourced right now, which is fine for the frontiers of Wikipedia, except that makes it very tempting to add in your own ideas and favorites. I think that there is something valid to have an article here for- someone referencing Lord of the Rings or quoting The Princess Bride will definitely be immediately understood, and a list of the works that do that is reasonable. That said, to be canon there is an extremely high standard that must be reached. It either must be incredibly popular, or else was so foundational that everything afterward to some extent incorporated it. We're talking stuff on the level of Star Trek here.

I mention this because I recently reverted the second addition of this passage (along with WP:PEACOCK words on LotR):

H. R. Giger's art is highly accepted among geeks. A few exclusive geeks prefer Martin Bigum's comic-style paintings.

The header of the article clearly lays out what is supposed to be done here. This is about works that are fundamental to a culture, the kind of things so commonly referenced that you need say but one sentence and everyone knows what you're talking about. If only a few "exclusive" geeks like it, it can't possibly be "canon"!

Here's a proposed guideline: If there is not a substantial Wikipedia article to link to, it's probably not geek canon, considering the number of geeks on the Internet and Wikipedia. That said, I think this article needs to be actually whipped into shape. Sources won't be easy to come by, but surely someone's done some kind of sociological study. Anyone feel up for looking? SnowFire 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think both Giger, Martin Bigum and Tolkien has the right to be part of the Canon. Geeks are more than computer geeks. It's a culture concerned with fantasy, science fiction, roleplaying games, video games and comic books. (Comment added by User:Konzack - SF)

You are missing the point.

It's not what should be well-known (or "has the right to" as you put it).

It's what is well-known.

It doesn't matter that Aeschylus was a total hack who wrote the equivalent of South Park for the Greeks. He gets in the Western canon because he was well-read and spawned some imitators. Some other Greek playwright who did work far better? There are probably plenty, but even if you've read their stuff and know it's way better than Aeschylus', that doesn't make it well-known and influential. The standard is influence and how widely known and respected a work is, not quality. It's quite possible that Mr. Bigum is the greatest artist ever, but his tiny Wikipedia page that barely even mentions any works combined with a small Google precense (Escher has 14 times as many hits) nearly rules him out of contention for possibly being a member of a modern canon on popularity grounds. There's still an argument to be made on influence grounds, but I don't see anyone offering evidence that he's dramatically altered or inspired lots of other artists respected in geek culture. If you have some, feel free to put it forward.

Also, I never said anything about geeks only being computer geeks. SnowFire 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

H. R. Giger is well-known. So is Tolkien. If you are not familiar with these two artists you are not part of geek culture, trust me. Trust me they spawned some imitators. Martin Bigum on the other hand is explicitly defined as very special, but it is still part of the comic book geek culture.

And you do not just erase what other people write.

That's the point!

Btw. Escher isn't all that popular among geeks. But alright I've seen some Escher fans out there among the geek culture. Not anything compared to Giger fans though. After all he designed the alien in Alien (film).

User: Konzack, August 23, 2006.

As to erasing what other people write, from the bottom of every single edit page:

Please note:

If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Look, if you want to make a case for them, this whole article could use some cites. If you can find a neutral reference that backs up your point, then great. This article is sorely lacking sources that aren't the books being referenced as it stands. But Bigum is not by any stretch well-known, and you have refused to offer any arguments as to why he might be influential. Read what I said before about what a canon is!

I'm not erasing Tolkien; he's mentioned lots of times already in the article. However, statements like "The most important geek book ever written was The Lord of the Rings" don't help, at least not with an accompanying argument. Again, see WP:PEACOCK. As for Giger... eh, I knew of him, but he was more a horror type, and half the time his work was being mocked. He was a geek artist, sure, but I'd rank him on the level of maybe Ralpha Bakshi, which is not exactly a huge compliment. That said, if someone can show why he was actually way more popular than I thought, feel free to add him. You currently haven't done that, though. (Edit: You just did in a later edit. I'll think on that and look up more on Giger.)

On a less confrontational note... Use the "edit" button that should appear above the "Article Focus" header to add to that discussion. Using the "plus" button starts a new discussion section, which it appears you don't want to do, since you keep using the old header tag. SnowFire 03:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I agree that it need to be backed up. I will get back to that when all the other contributions cites their sources.

Yes, Tolkien is mentioned several times because he is important. But not his books, which was odd. Tolkien have influenced geek culture on every level. That is why he is so important. Giger is not just horror.

When editing one should try to make the best of it, not just erase what one does not like.

Read: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes

Konzack 23 August 2006

There is a reason behind why I am aggressively reverting you, and it has nothing to do with me "not liking" those works.

If this was just a game of "SnowFire's tastes on a page," you'd be exactly right. I very specifically have tried to avoid adding anything of my own on this page, and in fact wasn't all that interested in it; it's just that when I found it a few months back, it was an utter mess. I have tried to organize it better and guard it against it becoming "Someone else's fandoms on a page," hoping that someone would eventually come along and source things up.

I don't want to get out the flamethrower, but your user page claims that you are a Ph.D. What is the problem with the definition of "canon"? Your very edit undercuts any claim of Mr. Bigum being canon! If he is only liked by certain "exclusive" geeks, he is almost by definition not canon! If someone added to an article on famous Squares "Billings Triangle, favored by some unique square enthusiasts," that can and should be reverted immediately, because a triangle is not a square. By using the word "exclusive", you are basically saying "Bigum, who is not canon, is canon." That is why I am reverting you. It is a claim that by its very nature is not appropriate to the article. See [1] for a comparable diff; a claim that undercuts itself should be removed.

The standards for something being called "canon" are traditionally very high. You could easily make an argument that this page is too long as it is, and certainly most of the last half is unsourced. If you want to make an unfairness argument, we can always nuke the second half of the page entirely, and then require that any addition to the later sections be sourced. Similar practices are done at articles like List of Internet slang that can attract random "I thought this was cool" additions.

As a random other comment, I'll just say that while not into comic books myself, I asked two friends of mine who are, and they'd never heard of Bigum. Anecdotes count for little, though. I will once again request sources showing how popular he is, or, alternately, a work showing that he was popular in the right places, and inspired many other artists.

I'm familiar with dispute resolution, by the way, but I've never had to use it until now. I've put a request for a Wikipedia:Third opinion up. SnowFire 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify in case someone stops by for the third opinion, User:62.107.111.117 is a not signed in Konzack, so this debate is still between two people.

Let me stress again that this is not even remotely a "comic book geeks" type thing. Comic book geeks are crazily dedicated to Wikipedia- check out the extensively edited articles on random comic book characters no one has ever heard of over at Category:Comics some time. A legitimately well-known artist such as Jack Kirby has a large and well-done article with a fair amount of edits. Martin Bigum's article has a grand total of 3 edits, two by you, and the other by a formatting bot! Bigum has 11,500 Google hits. Teddy Kristiansen is also a minor Danish comics artist, but his article stub has edits by 8 different people, seemingly. He has 44,500 Google hits. Does Teddy Kristiansen get in as well? Or is Bigum the best kept secret fandom ever? (By the way, I was wrong above; I misread Bigum by an order of magnitude. "M.C. Escher" has 148 times as many hits as "Martin Bigum", not 14 times as I said before; it gets even worse if you just search for "Escher."

If you want to add something, then defend it. I don't like revert wars either, but I have posted detailed explanations as to why I'm doing this here. Surely you can defend your choices better than just telling me that I shouldn't delete things? SnowFire 02:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you can use google as such an authority.

Furthermore, Martin Bigum is not a comic artist he is an artist just like Escher and Giger.

What is your authority in this field anyway?

I'm a geek culture researcher. Who are you?

Konzack 25 August 2006

Let's ignore any argumentum ad verecundiam here, and get to the point. What is it? It sounds like you two are arguing about whether to mention or not H. R. Giger, Tolkien, Ecsher, and Martin Bigum? — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Not to be too snappy, but I'd recommend checking the reversions that have been going on for some time here, or the previous discussion. That's not quite it.

Tolkien is already in the article, multiple times. However, User:Konzack wants to give Tolkien greater focus. Fine. The problem is, it's a poorly written section that simply asserts that Tolkien is... well, look at the reversion! "The most important geek book ever written was The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien in which he presents the world of Middle-earth to his readers. This book has been a tremendous inspiration for geek culture." Hyperbole like "the most important geek book ever written" is fine if you actually back it up and go into the issue deeper, but Konzack just stops. This is not a fatal flaw, but it isn't well-written. As WP:PEACOCK says, if something really is the greatest, that's fine, but you need to show why. The section just reads very badly, like a POV piece, with that as the header. This is especially vexing because, again, Tolkien is IN THE ARTICLE already! It's not like he's being surpressed.
Giger is actually the most minor part in the dispute. Personally, I'm not sure if he should be here, but it's reasonable to add him. He's getting caught in the crossfire to a degree, but I will add that Konzack has refused to explain why he should be in the article either, aside from saying that he designed the aliens from the movie "Alien" (and by a standard like that, I could easily come up with 20 other artists who should go in, but details). Still, a footnote, really.
Bigum is the hugest part. I've basically explained my objections above. The short recap is that a canon is, by definition, things that are so hugely influential or popular that they become part of a culture. For instance, people make references to the Bible and Biblical stories all the time in standard English, even without realizing it. Konzack's addition says "A few exclusive geeks prefer Martin Bigum." This, by definition, rules himself out of a canon (unless he was secretly incredibly influential and he inspired other, more popular artists- except that isn't true, and Konzack hasn't tried to argue that either). Including him on the list is akin to including a quality art-house movie on a list of blockbusters. It may be good, but it completely misses the point of the list/article.

If this article is just a "add fandoms you like" article, then it is more appropriate for a forum somewhere, and we can put this up for AfD. SnowFire 20:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bigum seems rather unnoteable for this article. It seems reasonable to do give Tolkien a little more space. I think SnowFire is correct in saying this has become a list of geek fandoms, whereas it should be an article on geek canon, that goes more in depth in a few areas (such as Lord of the Rings). — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

It still provokes me that you just erased what you did not like. Ok, let's forget mr. Bigum even though he is quite interesting from a geek cultural point of view. Anyway, let us move forward. I think you are right when I say that Tolkien needs more attention. Because his way of thinking subcreation has influenced geek culture on different levels from movies to videogames. H. R. Giger is still important not just because he made the Alien, but because he made Necronomicon paintings and bio-technological art. He is admittedly much more accepted and respected in European geek culture than in American geek culture. Please read: * Geek Culture: The 3rd Counter-Culture Konzack 27 August 2006

(Never mind. Didn't notice revert was different this time.) Hopefully we can work things out, now. SnowFire 20:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got this quote from Richard Bartle: “The single most important influence on virtual worlds from fiction is J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Although it would be of huge significance merely for having established the genre of High Fantasy, its ultimate worth lies in its depiction of an imagined world. It's not the particular world it describes that is momentous (although Middle-earth is indeed classic source material for people writing new text-based games); rather, it's that creating a fully realized, make-believe world was shown to be actually possible. Prior to The Lord of the Rings, worlds of such depth were practically unknown”

Bartle, Richard (2004): Designing Virtual Worlds. New Riders Publishing, p. 61-2

Konzack 28 August 2006

There is one thing that I'm unclear, why is Buffy the Vampire Slayer in quotes while the other stuff in the list is in italics? Illadar 05:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geek Canon on the internet?

Frankly, this whole subsection is full of BS. It says that sites like Google, YouTube, and Myspace used to be popular with geeks, but that geeks now avoid them because they are too mainstream. As far as I know, Geeks have hated Myspace since day one (I know I hated it long before it was mainstream) and I know for a fact that many geeks frequent youtube and Google. In matter of fact among many geeks, Google is considered the corporation of geekdom--one to be lauded, not scorned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.96.230 (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This page seems to be nothing but original research

Let's get some cites pronto or a call for deletion is in order... 209.148.118.3 16:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Yes and no. I try to avoid looking at this article because, well, ugh, but I did try and clean it up awhile back (it used to be even worse). I see that others recently added nonsensical sections, like the websites one.

Anyway. I agree that this article is really bad and probably contains OR, but I was hoping that in the eventualist spirit of Wikipedia, people would eventually offer cites and so on. They don't seem to be doing so, alas. Maybe we should just amputate the entire last half of the article, and require that people come packing a cite from a reasonably authoritative source that (XYZ book) is well loved and respected? Merely hyperbolic personal reviews wouldn't count, since there are plenty of items with fierce niche audiences. SnowFire 22:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just a random reader, but why hasn't this page been killed yet? It's unencyclopedic, unsourced, and generally sloppy. While this is an interesting subject for discussion and could make some fantastic articles I don't believe that it's right for here. Not to mention that some of the entries can be highly debateable.

Firstly the quality of the information here is close to first rate, if not first rate. There doesn't appear to be any 'spare' items in the entries, the article doesn't appear to be in danger of having people add 'personal favourites' as the lists are quite lean, some having only two or three items/authors. As to the accusation towards original research I'm fairly certain that many many sources can be found and I will in fact commit myself to finding them, because I am just so sick and tired of good articles getting extermined by the wikipolice who DON'T HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT THEY ARE EDITTING. --I 14:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! This article did not seem to turn out as the original planner intended. Seems more like a who's who and what's what for everyone's favorite niche title. I think it should be deleted. Either that, or have the main points (mostly in the beginning) merged into the main geek article. Mr. ATOZ 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm going to reiterate my suggestion of deletion, while I agree that this is a fascinating subject which certainly merits discussion, I don't believe it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia entry. A list of geek canon will vary immensely between types of geek, generations of geeks and even individuals. 81.151.247.228 22:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I already redirected it once, but then it seems a good-faith effort was made to source the article... which then kind of sputtered out. Sigh. May be best to redirect it again. SnowFire 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is entirely Original Research. Note that the Western Cannon article does not attempt to list what works are part of the cannon. Instead, it lists catalogs of the cannon. Wikipedia is not a place to attempt creating such a list, it's a place to note attempts to create such lists elsewhere. If there are not attempts elsewhere, than the concept of a geek cannon probably isn't notable. Ocicat 22:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some examples are appropriate. The Western Canon (note: one n) article's lack of a mention of Homer is probably over the line. But yeah. Looks like it's best to redirect this again, and hope its contents can be remade in a better form. SnowFire 02:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources.

From NeonMerlin:

Lack of references, or even alleged lack of verifiability, is not sufficient grounds for deleting an article without a vote.

Mm. I didn't delete it, obviously; I redirected it, and nicely put a reminder over at Talk:Geek. If you want to make an effort to source this article, then great, but basically none of the current sources are any good (the only one on point is from Mr. Konzack above, and it's awful.). Ideally we want sources that don't just praise an item, but rather confirm that it's strongly referenced in a geek subculture. If these sources don't come along soon, I unfortunately will nom it for AfD, and I don't think it'll survive if the comments above are any indication. SnowFire 00:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]