Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-joke

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The result was keep withdrawn after radical rewrite of the article. `'Míkka>t 23:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-joke

In-joke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

the article was tagged as "unencyclopedic" since November. No encyclopedic references. Original research. `'Míkka>t 16:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Transwiki the intro to wiktionary, or delete and leave {{wi}} as a softredirect (would still require a new wiktionary article to be started). I find it hard to imagine how this article could be anything else but a dictdef, and/or a magnet for trivia and original research. – sgeureka t•c 16:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I have have concerns that the original user who tagged the article as "Unencyclopedic" referred to a list of examples of In-jokes as opposed to the encyclopedia concept and definition of In-joke. WP:Cite has concerns, but I don't think WP:No Original Research has an issues as In-Jokes are a well-established, and well known social activity. Zidel333 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is well a established phenomenon and not a neologism. I don't think the article title is correct though. It should eaither be insider joke or in joke but the hyphen is incorrectly used. --Neon white (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. There's a reason this article is called "in-joke" rather than "inside joke"... if you know what I mean. Wink wink. Mandsford (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: article is well sourced and contains more than just a dictionary definition. Fulfils all the criteria. Laïka 22:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Laika.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:20, 7 December 2007 (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.