This article is irreconciably POV. To move it to Words which some hold to be inherently funny would be just plain stupid, and to leave it where it is would be to turn a blind eye to blatant POV. - Node
Delete (see below). - Node- Keep! Good article, interesting subject. Doesn't seem all that POV to me. Everyking 03:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. I find it interesting -- Chris 73 | (New) Talk 03:11, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This was previously listed in May 2003 and kept, see the talk page. Are there any new arguments to justify this relisting? Andrewa 04:00, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. -Sean 04:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. "Wankel rotary engine". <snicker> Wile E. Heresiarch 05:04, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, I don't see how it's POV. Saying that "these words are funny to everyone" would be POV, but this article simply says that some people believe they are. Eurleif 05:27, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's better than it sounds.
- Keep. The phenomenon is well-known, and there is more to be written on this subject. Previous discussion also voted to keep. -- The Anome 06:05, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely keep. It's a good article. - Mustafaa 06:09, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Upon further consideration, I guess it's OK, but I think it focuses too much on specific words and not on the debate. Node
- While any list of inherently funny words is inherently POV, the concept is widespread and deserves an article. Keep. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:41, Apr 30, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Concept of "inherently funny word" is a valid comedic concept, and this article addresses the concept. It does not claim any given word is "inherently funny". It is abusive to continually keep this on VfD. Perhaps Wikipedia needs a "double jeopardy" statute for VfD's. Philwelch 23:59, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The title is a little misleading, but the article is solid. Denni 05:50, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
- Blatant keep. Hilarious. Not POV article at all.
- Keep. Funny, and not a PoV. --SMWhat 03:40, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]