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. Sandstein 13:31, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to keep an idiot busy for hours

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about an old joke. While I'm sure we've all seen variations of it before, I'm not finding any sources that actually discuss it in any meaningful way. As it stands, the article consists of nothing except a listing of jokes using this punchline, which of course is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. When I looked for sources that might help actually build an encyclopedic article, I did not find any. I can find plenty of places that tell the joke, but I'm not having any luck finding any sources that actually talk about the joke in a way that would demonstrate notability. The current sources in the article are the same case, they are merely retellings of the joke rather than any discussion about it. As well known as the joke is, without the proper sources to build an encyclopedic entry on, it really can't exist as its own article. Rorshacma (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - This is actually the third nomination for this article, however, both previous AFDs were years ago. The first resulted in no-consensus, and while the second one resulted in a "Keep", neither side were really citing any usable policy, so it really came down to a "I Like It" vs "I Don't Like It" type argument. I'm hoping that by nominating it again, a clearer, policy-based consensus can be reached. Rorshacma (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my first inclination was to note that notability is not temporary, but having had a proper look at it, I don't think notability was ever really properly established. Nor do I think it is now established by the sources provided. On balance, I don't think it is of such encyclopaedic value that we need to keep it. Stalwart111 (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a knwon joke, but no scholarly or noteworthy discussion of it in an encycliopedic way referenced. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - this article provides nothing of value to this encyclopedia; I don't think even Encyclopedia Dramatica would keep this one. Besieged (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- for this article to be worthy of inclusion, it should be able to show why the joke is notable. There's no reason the article meets WP:GNG, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Ducknish (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/attempt at humor I suppose turning it into a redirect to itself is out of the question? ;) Umbralcorax (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Very funny. Stalwart111 (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge While I'm underwhelmed by the perceived need to nominate this as AFD and fighting every impulse to allude to this process keeping several of us idiots busy for hours, I'm also aware that there's nothing in RS, nor is there likely to be. However, a merge of the basic content to Joke#Styles seems a better solution than slashing this content outright. Celtechm (talk) 05:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Joke#Styles, as said above. --Vincent Liu (something to say?) 13:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete limited notability. Also, WP:NOT seems to apply. If there was a specific author or source associated with this,it would be different. --John Nagle (talk) 07:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joke#Styles. It doesn't look notable in its own right, but there's no reason we can't merge it. A merge would save the content in the page history, and the redirect would be useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's explanation that "How to keep an idiot busy for hours" is a humorous variation of the liar paradox is a valuable bit of information and having a few examples is important. The rest isn't needed or sourced. The hierarchy would seem to be Philosophical logic > Paradoxes > Liars paradox crossed with joke humor --> How to keep an idiot busy for hours, so Joke#Styles would seem to be a good place for any of the valuable sourced information. Since there's no valuable sourced information and we don't need the redirect and the redirect would not be a good idea per the turning the redirect towards itself eventuality. Delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.