Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightbulb joke

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. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbulb joke

Although I was considering myself as a strong inclusionist, I couldn't make sense of this endless list of jokes in an encyclopedia. May be we should keep it somewhere as a cultural heritage (wikibooks, wikisource) but I vote for deletion from wikipedia. What do you think? (Talk page says that Jimbo Wales deleted the jokes wikibook last year.) -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 07:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We could definitely trim down the actual list of jokes a bit but I think the article is notable enough. ugen64 08:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles aren't notable. Subjects are notable, and there's no notability guideline for jokes. If you mean "written about in independent sources," I have yet to see a source that writes about lightbulb jokes, instead of just being a jokelist itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete everything below the introduction, but keep the article. There has got to be some scholarly discussion on this subject, which could be used to write a externally verifiable, third-party reliably sourced article, but I personally believe that Wikipedia is not a jokebook. If this is not an acceptable solution, delete the entire article. -- saberwyn 08:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Now that's what I'm talking about! Keep per answering of my complaints. -- saberwyn 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Ugen64. This is notable as a cultural phenomenon. But a list of jokes -- any list -- runs into potential comedy copyright issues. --Dhartung | Talk 09:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article on one of the oldest jokes in the book (per Saberwyn, there'd have to be some folklorist or another who's actually looked at this from a scholarly perspective). Including masses of examples of the form is probably not a good idea, since there'd be a mix of copyvio and attack-page problems. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is perhaps one of the best known jokes in the english language. It should be tidied up tho. Graemec2 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs to be seriously trimmed down. James086^{Talk | Contribs} 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I so enjoyed reading through, looking for my favourites (all there) and picking up some good new ones, but I have to say it is not really an encyclopaedia article. Perhaps keep part, i.e. the intro and a few examples; delete the rest. Shame though. Emeraude 13:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,get rid of a few of the jokes though. I like the meta humour. 141.3.12.120 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark for cleanup. -Ryanbomber 13:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we took out the list of jokes, the whole content of the article would be four or five sentences, every one of which would be unverifiable original research. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is verifiable. I'll prove that it is when I have more time. In the meantime, why not prove that it ISN'T? -Ryanbomber 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:V and WP:NOR, the burden of providing sources falls on the editor who wishes to include the material. Proving a negative would be impossible; but, given the fact that I've never seen any sort of writing about the joke in my entire life, I consider that grounds enough to say that this wasn't based on reliable sources. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That last sentence implies that you know the joke exists and you're just taking the rules way too literally. What are you trying to prove? Instead of deleting perfectly good information, why not, y'know, improve it, especially if you know it exists? The point of Verifiability is to prevent Joe Smith from making an article on something he just made up or keeping it from being cluttered. The difference here is that the lightbulb joke has value (as you yourself seem to know) and should be included in a repository of information. -Ryanbomber 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "exists" is not sufficient content for an article. We need to be able to say something about the joke without resorting to original research. Information about the joke would have value, but what information can you possibly include an article about the joke without resorting to doing your own research? As it is now, that's exactly what's happened: the article is just what its authors think, instead of facts cited to a reliable source. We can recreate the article when we have a source. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree with Night Gyr. Also if we keep this one what would stop people from creating a whole series of articles blonde jokes, doctor jokes, Italian jokes, Muslim jokes etc. etc. (see! one is already started! more on Category:Jokes) There is no notability guideline for jokes for a good reason, they are simply not encyclopedic unless there is a certain social impact or event worth to talk about. Jewish humor is along these lines for example. -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 18:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move the list of jokes to Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense, but keep the introduction. Koweja 15:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is, without a doubt, one of the best-known jokes in the English language. It's also a cultural phenomenon. The list could be trimmed down or moved to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --SunStar Net^talk 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't BJAODN for wikipedia babble? I didn't think "real" jokes go in there. -Ryanbomber 16:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I thought it was also for humorously bad article content as well. I might be wrong about that.Koweja 16:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cleanup. And I also recommend creating a WikiList for people who like making lists. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 17:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote, please provide a rationale. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up and keep Look what I found at JSTOR:

Kerman, Judith B. "The Light-Bulb Jokes: Americans Look at Social Action Processes". The Journal of American Folklore > Vol. 93, No. 370 (Oct., 1980), pp. 454-458.
Dundes, Alan. "Many Hands Make Light Work or Caught in the Act of Screwing in Light Bulbs". Western Folklore > Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 1981), pp. 261-266.

Reliable sources do exist, so WP:NOR shouldn't be an obstacle. Zagalejo 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, these are exactly the sorts of reliable sources I've been asking for. I'd still recommend rewriting from scratch, because nothing currently there is actually based on sources and any assertions of fact may be wrong. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-write Even if/as sources do exist, the article does not make use of them. The article, to survive, surely should be about the joke, not simply an interminable list of its variations.--Anthony.bradbury 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep but cleanup and transwiki most of the jokes to Wikisource or Wikibooks. Stifle (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is encyclopedic and there's plenty of encyclopedic material in it. Fg2 01:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or re-write unsourced, and the only way it could be sourced would break copyright laws unless it referenced only public domain "lightbulb" jokes. More to the point, an encyclopedia article is meant to describe a subject, not list endless examples of that subject. Canderra 02:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with some cleanup. Difficult or impossible to fully source, but nonetheless very notable. --S0uj1r0 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sheesh. Danny Lilithborne 22:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Get rid of the listcruft but keep the article. Lightbulb jokes are a notable phenomenon. - ∅ (∅), 02:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Clean up, don't delete. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of removing the listcruft. I hope I didn't trigger the anti-vandal bot. :-) - ∅ (∅), 17:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that the listcruft has been removed, and per the discussion above about sources that can be added. --Interiot 17:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve to better comply with verifiability policy. Verifiable social phenomenon, per works already cited. The original research moniker has been applied increasingly liberally of late. This article is about the lightbulb joke and, while it needs better sourcing, it can be pretty readily distinguished from attempts to advance fringe science. Of necessity (tongue in cheek):

Q: How many Wikipedians does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Twenty. One to create the lightbulb, two to argue about content on its talk page & revert each other's edits, one to nominate the lightbulb for deletion, two more to argue the merits in AfD, one to close the debate as keep, one to speedy the article after the AfD, one to complain at deletion review, two more to argue the question there, one admin to undelete the page, one to wheel war with the previous admin, one to request arbitration, four arbitrators & a bureaucrat to arbitrate, and potentially Jimbo Wales or the Foundation. --Ssbohio 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encylopedic entry on one of the most used jokes in English language history. --Oakshade 01:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is much better than simply a list of lightbulb jokes. Although it will naturally have a tendency to attract joke addition, the topic is unquestionably notable and there is good content. How was this not closed speedy keep already?--ragesoss 05:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) because the article has improved signifcantly since it was nominated. 2) because there's nothing wrong with leaving a discussion open for the full five days. -- saberwyn 12:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How many Wikipedia editors does it take to replace a lightbulb joke article with a finished article? We don't know yet, it isn't done, and there is no deadline so we don't know when we'll be done. But we should keep the new improved lightbulb joke article. GRBerry 03:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is definitely a cultural phenomenon and should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Of course with these kinds of subjects nothing can be verified definitively but you can't still deny that this is a very relevant article to idk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wfisher (talk • contribs).

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.