Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East German jokes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No consensus? I don't like closing AfD's as no consensus (it's the closers' duty to check arguments against policy, and usually one side has policy backing it up), but this is, well, a no consensus as far as I can see. Fram (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] East German jokes

East German jokes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Em? Utterly unreferenced - utterly subjective. We are not a jokebook. Were this an article reporting studies of national humour, that would be one thing. But a list of jokes is a) unmaintainable b) unverifiable. In any case I suspect variations of many of these jokes are told across various nations. Docg 14:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Completely unencyclopedic. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No verification WP:V and no indication of what the importance is, save using Wikipedia as a repository of jokes, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information BlinkingBlimey (talk) 14:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree that a long list of jokes would be unencyclopedic, but we have articles about different varieties of humor (or humour, for people who think we Americans can't spell), such as Gallows humor. What's considered humorous is an insight into a particular culture, in the same way that what's considered offensive is. Examples of what does/did make people laugh in another place or time can be encylopedic, in the same way that a legend, fable, proverb, etc. would be. The "not a jokebook" guideline is in place to set boundaries on such articles, not to prevent them altogether. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Then create an article on East German humo(u)r and find, if they exist, some serious sources that analyse it (it can use one or who jokes as examples - providing they are also used by the analytical sources). Anything else is just "a jokebook" (as this is) or "original research" (which we also don't do). In any case, this article is useless as a start for a proper one.--Docg 15:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. German humour exists. Brad (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Trust me, this is not East German humour, any more than a Polack joke would be considered "Polish-American humor". 72.151.55.27 (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Bullshit. `'Míkka>t 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • When the article is so badly referenced, I have no reason to disbelieve that assertion.--Docg 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The nominator deleters-voters were not diligent enough to check the references of the article (or simply don't know German). The topic is researched, valid, and referenced. It is just the article did not attract attention of people who (a) love informal stuff so much to waste their time on jokes and (b) love formal stuff so much to write a bullet-proof wikipedia article - a rare combination I guess (especially if added good command of German...). `'Míkka>t 16:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A couple of books at the end of the article does not equal referencing. Almost nothing in the article is attributed, so what if anything, came from those books is wholly unknown. Sticking references at the end of an article meets neither the demand for attribution not verification.--Docg 17:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
      • A yet another example of lack of due diligence and disrespect to fellow wikipedians. "sticking references" was in fact a part of a major serious expansion of the article and your "wholly unknown" is lack of god faith. When accusing someone, you better have a proof handy, colleague. On the other hand, in your defense I have to notice that the german wiki article, de:Witze der DDR, was deleted. `'Míkka>t 23:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete baleete, per nom Q T C 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and may be a violation of copyright, as the jokes are mostly unattributed. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 18:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Bah, everybody wants more Baleetions Q T C 18:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - I can't be any more blunt then to say unencyclopedic.--Pmedema (talk) 18:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to German humour, which is a more appropriate place for this (semi-sources) content. --NickPenguin(contribs) 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. East German jokes is a type of literature. If Wikipedia has an article Spanish proverbs, if Wikipedia has an article Trobairitz (occitan female troubadours), then why not E. German jokes. Please don't discriminate against funny literature. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Because, isn't a valid rationale for the problems noted in the nom. Q T C 21:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Week keep. Seems interesting, if in need of more references.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If a subject has had three books written about it then it easily passes WP:N. Any other issues raised should be addressed by editing not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Actually, the last 2 books are not "about"; they are annotated joke collections. `'Míkka>t 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google books also [1] and more immediately show serious research sources for the topic. `'Míkka>t 00:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Do they? Look again?--Docg 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh yes I did. Want some quotes for proof? Here you are:
        "Trabi jokes, like Ulbricht and Honecker jokes had make rounds for years in the DDR. But the ridicule was tingled with affection, for the Trabi was also loved like a weirdly funny neighbor or an endearlingly daft old aunt or uncle, especially so because it was practically the only immediately recognizable symbol of DDR identity. And unlike DDR political humor, Trabi jokes could be openly shared and freely embroidered: Why does the Trabi have a heatable rear window? - To keep your hands warm while pushing." And this is not from a jokebook. It is amusing how recently wikipedian's laziness has become the major driving force in AfD. `'Míkka>t 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You provided a link to a list of books that mentioned DDR and Joke in the blurb as a killer argument. Sorry if I don't take that too seriously. There were idiots travel guides in your evidence. Want to show there's serious study of German jokes you will need to be more specific. I see you now have, so I'll think on that.--Docg 00:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
          • In fact, nearly all major topics mentioned in the article are covered in the books. I will try to find some time to make a fresh start with the article (unless someone else beats me). `'Míkka>t 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
            • P.S. "Blurb", "killer argument", "sticking references at the end"... - this kind or derogatory civility makes me mad much more than when someone calls me "anti-Romanian KGB spy". Is this how you earned your proudly brandished "barnstar of civility"? FUI mine was simply an argument, not "killer argument", and as a rule when I vote an article to keep in the case of strongly split voices I usually put my keyboard where my mouth is. `'Míkka>t 01:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I see no reason to have a collection of jokes unless they can be individually demonstrated to have had wide circulation through published sources. These jokes don't even go beyond politics; they're mostly about Honecker. I'm not convinced that there's any true purpose to this article except to push a political POV. Everyking (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
What politial POV would that be? "GDR resurrectionism", maybe ? -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. The jokes are almost all hostile. Everyking (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, somehow, somewhere (userspace?). How does one reference jokes anyway, especially GDR ones, which could hardly be made public in print, movie, standup comedy or the like? The article is anything but pretty, and translating jokes a bad joke itself, but then these illustrate Cold War history, which set them apart from any random collection of jokes. That the German article was deleted [2] is also a joke itself, deletions being the favourite running gag on de-Wiki aka. Löschopedia, which has its own Hall of Fame of German Deletion Champions. -- Matthead  DisOuß   14:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • keep GDR jokes were indeed a major political force, and there are suffficient sources. DGG (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable political phenomenon.Biophys (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEP To remove this would be utterly ridiculous. The jokes of the GDR are indeed an insight into the GDR's own unique culture. Many of these jokes - especially those with regard to Honecker and the governing authorities throughout the GDR's history - would never have been allowed to be told outside one's own house for fear of imprisonment fo enciting anti-Socialst behaviour. Therefore, the jokes would never have been formally recorded. Furthermore, the jokes are very GDR specific and as there is very little accurate literature / information in circulation with regard to what life in the GDR must have been like this page offers an interesting and unique insight into the GDR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.58.160 (talk • contribs) 03:57, January 14, 2008

Re: "never have been formally recorded." - they have been; especially after the fall of the Berlin Wall. `'Míkka>t 02:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete this and most other "list of jokes" articles. These pages are like article-size trivia sections not attached to any other articles. Many "keep" arguments amount to WP:INTERESTING ("...this page offers an interesting and unique insight into the GDR"), WP:BIGNUMBER ("If a subject has had three books written about it then it easily passes WP:N") and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ("If Wikipedia has an article Spanish proverbs, if Wikipedia has an article Trobairitz (occitan female troubadours), then why not E. German jokes"). szyslak 09:23, 16 January 2008 (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.