Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Canadian humour
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 of the debate was - kept
[edit] Canadian humour
There's probably enough material for an article on the subject, but this is pointless and not informative. Tuf-Kat 08:53, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Eh? This is currently pointless. Delete unless someone decides to start from scratch and create a proper article in the next few days. Average Earthman 14:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note that Bearcat has now done so. Samaritan 13:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Shockingly obvious substub. It does remind me of what Dave Thomas and John Candy said about the origins of "Great White North" on SCTV: the Canadian law required 2% "Canadian content," so they said, "What? A couple of guys wearing touks talking about back bacon and Molson's?" Geogre 20:22, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- A propos of nothing, it's actually spelled tuque...oh, and my vote is to keep so that my fine fellow Canucks have a chance to actually do something with it. The potential is massive, after all: SCTV, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, King of Kensington, The Red Green Show, Royal Canadian Air Farce, Wayne & Shuster, Will Ferguson, Stephen Leacock, Miriam Toews, The Frantics, Barenaked Ladies, Moxy Früvous...want I should go on, or do you get the idea? Bearcat 02:47, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Simply getting Canadian comedians would be a long list, although I really don't think it should be kept unless there actually is something about Canadian humor that's individual. Tuque? Wow. (It could conceivably be about the Canadian humor industry, and I sure wouldn't include Red Green as an example of funny.) Geogre 04:22, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, tuque is a borrowing from French...as English so often does, we kept the spelling but mangled the pronunciation into something more friendly to the anglophone tongue. (I mean, honestly, who looks at the word hors d'oeuvre and thinks there should be an r sound before the v?) As for Red Green, well, I don't find him all that funny, either, but unfortunately enough other people do. Bearcat 06:44, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: I think instead of deleting it, perhaps it can be a collaborative contribution. Spinboy 21:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep: This page has HUGE potential. Earl Andrew 21:35, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete unless someone totally rewrites it prior to expiration of VfD. There could be an article about Canadian humo[u]r, but this isn't it and this isn't the start of one. You could have a bot generate articles like this. Here, have another one: "Dutch humor is similar to American humor. There are regional jokes and political jokes. Political jokes often reference government corruption or inaction. Brabant and Frisia can sometimes be referenced in regional jokes." Redirect to Robertson Davies? (No, not serious)... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:37, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) P. S. If anyone is going to work on it, don't forget Stephen Leacock...Keep, valid topic and some evidence that it's going to be worked on. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:29, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)- Delete. Guess I just don't have a sense of humour... P Ingerson 00:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Keep iff greatly expanded. Aerion 01:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Substub, but valid topic. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep for the topic, eminently encyclopedic and expandible, and now candidate for Canadian collaboration of the week. Samaritan 02:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Great, but as I read this the article is still in its useless state. At least add a "See also" section and put links to Robertson Davies and Stephen Leacock and any other blazing supernovas of the Canadian laff firmament, so that we can at least see that the article is being improved during VfD. Yeah, I'd do it myself but I'm a little tired of undermining my own "delete" votes... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:59, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 17:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- [Insert pun on "Canadian humus" here]
- Keep. Currently too small is not a reason to delete. Let the article grow. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:17, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep and expand. If the folks north of the 48th Parallel are willing to take this on, go for it! - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - this definately needs work but it is now being vote on for Canadian colloboration of the week and I'll be adding to it whether it succeeds or not! - Jord 16:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, agree with Samaritan. —No-One Jones 22:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- KeepAndyL 23:16, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is a reasonable subject. Canadians have a chance to appreciate U.S. humour, British humour, and home-grown Canadian humour that most of the rest of the world doesn't know about. We should share this with the humour-deprived. Stamp out systemic bias. Jallan 03:39, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Looks like a keeper now. -- Hadal 06:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Absolutely keep! This is one of our defining characteristics in North America. Radagast 01:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
- keep, Canadian humour is distinct. Markaci 06:57, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)
- Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 22:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, this could be informative for some North Americans. Sunray 02:16, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
- Keep. Looks interesting enough to me. [[User:JonMoore|Jon, Conqueror of Men | (Talk!)]] 22:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep now. [[User:Premeditated Chaos|PMC]] 02:27, 15 Dec 2004 (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.
