Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humorous Chain Email

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 19:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous Chain Email

Article is really about "Burlap Body Boy" chain email, which by itself is not notable.-- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 05:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Reply to User Bmicomp:

I created this page. I am impressed that you read it so quickly, but not with your analysis of the page, which is not fairminded. I would note that any attempt to write anything serious and complete about spam cannot help but also contain examples of it. To criticise the article solely on that basis (that it has spam in it), is quite simplistic and inconsequential.

So I disagree with your opinion about what the article is really about. The article is not about "burlap body boy" specifically , but about Humorous chain emails, as a distinct type of chain email. The main part of the page is a discussion of what exactly is a humourous chain email, and how it distinguishes itself from other types of chain emails. I will admit that the page is as yet incomplete, and perhaps not even very good. The discussion could go deeper, and contain other points common to such emails, perhaps with other example (which undoubtedly will spur more ire from certain users). It would be fair minded Criticize the page on THOSE MERITS.

Certainly many types of chain emails (humorous, fake charity scams, etc) can be categorized and described, and this endeavour is exactly what this very site is for. They are a part of the culture of the internet.

The Burlap body boy was used only as an example of this type of email because it illustrates (as described on the page) the salient characteristics of such emails. Which are that it is a humorous story, which asks to be forwarded, and part of its humour is derived from the attempts within the story itself to forward it. I vote to Keep the page, and Improve it -- CRF (page creator). 27 July, 2005 207.216.12.220 07:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge. Chain letters are a valid topic, but it seems there's already an article about them. I suppose someone (CRF perhaps?) could attempt to merge the content in with that article, although quoting the entirety of the "burlap body boy" email is probably a bit much. I mean, it's bad enough I have to wade through that stuff in my inbox, much less here... --Alan Au 07:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is apt to bring the Chain letters page into the discussion, for I had not known about it. However, after reading it, I am not yet inclined to think merging the Humorous Chain Email page into that page would be wise. This particular subject (humorous chain mail) is very well defined and contained as a subset of the chain letter, and as such, is best on a separate page, in my opinion. A link from the Chain letters page, to this new one, could even be considered.

The point that it is a 'bit much' to quote the entire story is valid I suppose. But the analysis on the page would suffer if the links were completely external. Also, any external links could not (will likely not) remain valid. Therefore, it made sense to me, in the absence of my knowing of a persistent, reliable copy of this story (and, perhaps, examples of its evolution) being available, that I would quote it in its entirety. One might argue that "Burlap Body Boy" could have a page on its own in the wiki, so as to have some reliable record of its existance, and so avoid the need to quote it extensively -- but I really don't think -that- is necessary. I cannot think of another wiki page where "burlap Body Boy" would be mentioned, let alone need to be quoted.

There seems to be, in the other two commenters, a small bias against any inclusion of what could be considered spam, almost as if it were an automatically conditioned response (for example, the good-humoured joke from the ?moderator?, alan au, about again reading Burlap Boy in an email summary). This is not an unwise bias to have to be sure, but I hope I am not being rude by suggesting that it is necessary to temper it on some occasions. I truly mean no disrespect by creating this topic, on an admitedly disagreeable subject. CRF 207.216.12.220 07:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not encyclopedic. Nandesuka 10:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Merge anything useful into Chain email, but leave out the body of the email. If you really want a reliable link to it, copy it to Wikisource. android79 12:18, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. --Scimitar ^parley 14:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete really nothing here that isn't already in chain email; one sentence there that says something along the lines of "chain emails sometimes contain jokes" would do the job. CDC (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I have now edited the page. I placed the body of the Burlap Body Boy Email on Wikisource, as suggested by Android79. This is useful, as this page is not meant as a discussion on solely that particular email, but a discussion upon the well defined characteristics of such emails as Burlap Body Boy.

I do disagree with CDC that there is nothing here that is not in chain email, and, as anyone can note by reading the page, its subject is beyond the simplistic "chain emails sometimes contain jokes" -- everyone can infer that. This is like saying language contains jokes, therefore, all discussions of jokes belong on the language wiki page. It is not wrong to say that jokes belong in the language category, but it would be very inconvenient to place jokes, and everything else to do with language, on language's wiki page. Thus we categorize jokes into its own page, and furthermore, we subdivide jokes into categories that have their own pages (etc). That is the purpose of an encyclopedia. I agree that at some point a subject will become trivial or so small that it doesn't warrant its own page (at least, at that time of consideration). But on this point of contention, I think this page deserves to stay separate, as opposed its being merged into existing pages, where the subteties (albeit, disagreable for some people to discuss) will likely be lost.

I disagree with user Scimitar's cryptic not notable designation. If that is supposed to be a comment upon the subject matter itself, I appreciate his opinion, but ask that he consider the possibility that others might find the subject (humorous chain emails) notable, well defined, and worthy of comment and discussion on their own. Scimitar should explain himself further, perhaps by directly criticizing on how I have written my definition, what is lacking in it, or why it is indistinguishable from some other entry in wikipedia, or ill-defined.

Of course, I claim it is not ill-defined, but I claim it is well defined. And I claim that is is distinguished from other wikipedia entries.

I have heard little in this discussion criticizing my article on those points, which are some valid points upon which to place criticism.

I note again, this type of email is part of our culture. It is a well defined category within chain emails: I've not yet read what I would consider to be a well-argued opinion to the contrary. I think it is best if it had its own page, so that the subject can be elaborated upon futher.

crf 207.216.12.220 17:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Actually, there is already a very nice archive of the original email available at Snopes [1]. --Alan Au 18:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

True, thank you for reminding me. I had come accross that page before. Incidentally, there are differences between that version on snopes and that one I originally posted. Which, I suppose, is an example of how such chain letters evolve. crf 207.216.12.220 20:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this is effectively a neologism, and certainly POV. There is no such terminology that can be verifiably applied to a chain email. Also, the keepability of an article is in inverse proportion to the length of comment required to defend it in VfD. -Splash 00:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - could not say it any better than Splash. Also, this is at least borderline original research - Skysmith 10:47, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.