Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1001 Internet Jokes


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

1001 Internet Jokes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication that this book meets WP:NBOOK. I will also nominate the sequel, 1001 Internet Jokes II, which is a contested PROD. bonadea contributions talk 20:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Related nomination (also fails WP:NBOOK)


 * Strong delete a book "published" by iUniverse, a vanity press or "self publishing company" as they apparently like to put it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

LET THEM STAY - In defense, these books are of historic measure because it was one of the first books published to address the subject of internet humour. It opened the door for others to follow. The new addition on gay and lesbian humour marks the first ebook on such humour as verified with Amazon.com and barnesandnoble.com. You are also discriminating because "WHERE" it's published? For shame...so if it were HARPER COLLINS it could stay?????. I find that statement below discriminatory.RJG —Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC).
 * clarification: the comment immediately above was added to the top of the page, so "the statement below" refers to Starblind's !vote
 * The guideline for notability of books states that "self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press indicates, but does not establish non-notability." That is, the books might still be notable, but the fact that they are published by iUniverse is an indication that they probably are not. (However, most of Harper Collins' published books are still not notable, so it's not an automatic thing.)  Please add reliable sources showing notability for the books - but note that unfortunately Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com are not considered reliable sources for this purpose.  Please read the notability guideline which provides a lot of information about what is required to show notability. Thank you! --bonadea contributions talk 07:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, being published by HarperCollins wouldn't make it automatically notable, but Collins or another real publisher would generally do some amount of publicity for their titles, which would lead to articles and reviews which hopefully would lead to notability/verifiability. Read this for the reasons why vanity and traditional publishers are different in this regard.  Also, your claim that this was "one of the first books published to address the subject of internet humour" has got to be a joke rivalling anything in the book.  30 seconds of Google searching found a similar book published (by Andrews Mcmeel!) a full FIVE YEARS before this one.  Not enough?  How about this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this one or this two-volume one?  And that's just staying within the narrow category of internet joke books, not even counting other earlier internet humour books like Dave Barry in Cyberspace.  One of the first, huh?  "LOL."  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the third time, I have been through this and I don’t appreciate it. I find that your editorial people tend to be high minded. With that said, '''I will QUOTE FROM

Wikipedia:Notability (books) as to where these books are valid on TWO POINTS.'''  Wikipedia:Notability (books) #3 - The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

http://www.fyne.co.uk in their “NEWS AND VIEWS section address the book as being the first gay and lesbian joke ebook. This has good value, merit and importance to the gay and lesbian community.

 Wikipedia: Notability (books) #5 The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

In reference to her kid book, “Wicka, Flicka and JJ “(isbn 1880851059) in the acknowledgement honored D.M. Schwab for sending joke contributions.. This is the source showing D.M Schwab as one of the pioneering people in using the internet in humour. Since this book isn't listed on any website, I can't reference it unless via ISBN which I had to spend an hour finding.

Furthermore, Mr. Schwab was just interviewed by Ivana Tayler (freelance journalist) and when that is posted, we will add it to the wikileaks references. The subject matter was on social media and he explains why he went from publishing to ebooks.

So, both points should give fact that we are in compliance with your guidelines and the books should remain.

This is also very time consuming for me and I don’t appreciate it. I will repeat that this is the THIRD time I had to defend these entries. The first one was giving me more clearer guidelines which I followed which is okay but now it’s getting ridiculous.

Am I suppose to quit my job and watch every entry I do 24/7 to make sure some bored editor wants to go on a power trip make someone’s life miserable?

RG  —Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Please try to see it from the reader's point of view for a moment - the person reading the article without prior knowledge of the book (which includes myself and other editors) cannot know more about the books than what is in the articles about them, which means that the claim to notability, and most importantly the sources (plural) that verify that claim, need to be in the article. This deletion discussion should take at least a week, so there is no immense hurry; we're all doing this as a hobby in our spare time. That being said, I did attempt to find sources that would support the books' notability before nominating the two articles for deletion, and unfortunately I did not manage to find anything. On the Fyne Times website, the only mention I find of one of the books is this which unfortunately is not something that would support the claim that the book has made a significant contribution to the GLBT community, or even something that shows notability for it - it is a simple presentation of the book, which looks rather like a press release. As for the claim that being mentioned in the acknowledgments of a book makes the author historically significant, that is not a reasonable claim - if that were the case, every parent, spouse and child of almost every author would be historically significant! And inferring from those acknowledgments that Mr Schwab is a pioneer within the area, when there are no third-party sources that say that he is, would constitute original research which is specifically disallowed on Wikipedia. It is impossible for me to comment on possible future significant coverage; if and when it appears it should be added but please read the definition of what constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.  --bonadea contributions talk 09:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonadea and other editors, you just argued my point but I want to address and I want to address a few facts that are rather INSULTING too. I spoke with D.M. Schwab and he was quite upset at your statements in particular SELF PUBLISHING. He said that the ONLY reason why "yellow bellied big publishing houses" didn't take his book because they were afraid of lawsuits. After he published his book. When the sky didn't fall they then went ahead and published internet jokebooks.

Bonadea, you argued the very reason why I didn't reference the source because it pre-dates when people uploaded everything on the internet. So, tell me who am I to photocopy and email the sources to???

Secondly, this falls on a holiday which does not give editors time to publish their interviews for sourcing matters. I called Ivana Taylor being that I am THREATENED for removal of stories but she's not in the office today.

I do not know what more to do? This is not playing favourable on my view of unbiased comments.

Bonadea, you mentioned THINK OF THE READER??? well think of me when in this very page an entry notes "self publishing" as an indication of loss of merit? (see starblind's statement) You don't think that is discriminatory??? After speaking with DM Schwab with the reasons why he was FORCED to self publish adds insult to injury. Your policies are discriminatory! For the following reasons (TAKE NOTE) 1) non internet sources are not valid or you don't have a mechanism to site them 2) self publishing has lower merit than major publishing houses (get with the times it's 2011 and most book stores are circumventing publishers and going directly to authors. Publishing houses will be obsolete!!!)

RJG —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC).
 * ...waaait, hold the phone a second. Are you seriously trying to tell us you're NOT D.M. Schwab / David Moishe Schwab??? Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "RJG", if you had looked at the policies linked above as well as on your talk page, which you were asked to read in order to help you edit the article so it wouldn't be deleted, you would have seen that reliable sources certainly do not have to be Internet based. They do, however, have to be actual, reliable sources, and they need to be properly quoted. There is a mechanism to cite such sources, which is also described in the policies you were directed towards - and if citing sources was the only problem you could provide the sources here and somebody would be more than happy to insert the proper citations in the article. Concerning your other arguments, if you want to change Wikipedia's guidelines concerning notability and sources, you have every right to attempt to get consensus for such a change, but this is not the place to do that; the merit of self-published sources can be discussed here. This discussion exists in order to determine whether the two books meet the currently existing requirements. So far there is nothing that indicates that they do meet these requirements.


 * Furthermore, your most recent post shows that you are closely affiliated with the articles' subjects, and it appears that you may have a conflict of interest. This means that you should avoid creating these articles yourself. --bonadea contributions talk 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete both - No coverage in reliable sources. In particular, there is no signfiicant critical reviews of reception in evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You know what? I'm feeling bullied here. AGAIN, I am telling you that there is biased in your approach to self publishing and a double standard. It's clear that you will delete my entries but I want to draw public attention to your actions because I still think they are high handed and biased. When you first gave me corrective suggestions, I did it. When you asked me to look into policies and stake my issues, it did it but it was a complete waste of time. You also set me up for FAILURE because when I site your bias, you ask that I jump over MORE HOOPS and HURDLES to get on some review committee to look at your own short comings. This was not a learning experience, and YES, some of the recommendations earlier were but just a JUDGE/JURY EGO TRIP that I don't appreciate going through. I am not saying some of your points aren't valid but not to the point of deletion. If I were doing thousands of entries, I would see your point but I'm not and trust me, I've read some Wikipedia entries by LARGER entities that don't get deleted but have permanent comments of short comings posted but no ACTIONS by your group to delete them. I guess they donate better than I do. No I am not DM Schwab, he lives in Allentown, PA and I'm in Canada. Do you want his phone number?THANKS FOR THE ADDITIONAL ATTACKS STARBLIND..SHOWS PROFESSIONALISM FOR WIKIPEDIA!!!!RJG —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete Something published by a vanity press could still be notable, but it would require significant coverage in reliable sources to establish this book's notability. The lone Gbooks hit shows only that this book exists. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Nothing here indicates this book is notable.4meter4 (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2011 (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.