Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Science humour

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 Delete. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Science humour

Science humour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Regretfully nominating this potentially interesting article. An original research: A random collection of examples of humor on scientific topics. No references to scholarly discussion of this topic, only references to particular examples, what had come to be called WP:COATRACK in wikipiedia, if I understand the term correctly.(no; looks like I misunderstood the concept) Mukadderat (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a list of jokes. szyslak 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Article is certainly soucable, and although a strict list is undesriable, I think the prose text does a good job of providing context in understanding the nuances of the subject. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • ...and this "prose text" is exactly what constitutes unsourced original research. Mukadderat (talk) 02:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I agree with that; the facts that make a joke humerous are implicit within the joke, and if the jokes themselves were sourced, then this would be a case of citing the primary source. How could a joke be funny if no one knew what it meant? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: Original research, and I don't believe Snopes to be a RS anyways. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and listcruft. Unlike RJD0060, however, I have no problem with Snopes as a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Their FAQ page states that content is added by 2 individuals. These people aren't notable in any other way, and they can freely add whatever they'd like. Not to mention the information on their site isn't sourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Snopes has frequently been cited as a reliable source, and I would generally accept it as such. Edison (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't understand how that can be considered reliable, since it is unsourced. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I consider Snopes a reliable source. Yes, they can freely add whatever they'd like, but they're not random people, they're two specific people who have effectively become specialized journalists -- they do serious research on urban legends, and generally provide sources in the articles. Pinball22 15:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Rjd0060 claims that Snopes is unsourced. What does "unsourced" mean? The Snopes article on the barometer joke [1] includes 10 references and identified sources covering the history of publication of the joke, which relate to its origin, such as the Chicago Tribune (1988), Readers Digest (1958), a 1961 science textbook, and Current Science. The Snopes articles are signed, the Snopes project has identified editors, and they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking with respect to urban legends, as required by WP:RS. Hence Snopes is generally accepted in Wikipedia as a reliable source. Edison 15:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "claim" anything. I simply said that I wouldn't use it as a reliable site. The snopes "article" may be sourced for this item, but I believe a lot of things on their site are not sourced. You're free to use it as a source if you'd like, but I wouldn't. Is that okay with you? - Rjd0060 15:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete This is a list of jokes and although I chortled at many of the items, such as the Heisenberg one, and although many of the entries are familiar to science students of the past several decades, and although it is useful to teachers of introductory science, it is a list, and the text is an essay, and, sadly, it does not appear to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, without prejudice if someone wants to recreate this article in a better fashion. Unlike Mathematical_joke this article does not analyze the jokes, provide outside sources or really work to establish notability. Epthorn (talk) 06:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• It's funny. It's well-written. It's memorable. It's original. Delete. Majoreditor 18:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, and I don't feel particularly good about voting to eliminate such a nice page. Still, in its current form it looks like OR. Note: I have left a notification of this Afd on the author's talk page to solicit his input.Xymmax 19:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
• move to Wikipedia namespace 132.205.99.122 21:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? That suggestion doesn't make sense. - Rjd0060 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall a bunch of humour articles, essays, and such being moved to project namespace (along with the deleted BJAODN) 132.205.99.122 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I like that each joke is explained for us dummies. So, when Henny Youngman says, "Take my wife (pause) please!" it is a play on words, where he is citing her as an example, but also asking the listener to take her away. Right? Mandsford 03:48, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply There are zillions of jokes. I highly doubt that explaining each and other of them is a way for writing encycopedia. All wikipedia rules apply. Firtst, trivial as it may seem, unreferenced explanations are just what they are: unreferenced, possibly original research. Second, there are jokes and jokes. Some of them deeply penetrated the culture, spawned a number of imitations and/or have aninteresting history. In this case ee can have separate artice for a single joke, just as we have separate aricles for single slang words or witticisms. But again, references for academic discussion of the topic, please. `'Míkka>t 18:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Sarcasm is wasted on the humorless. Mandsford 23:38, 1 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.