Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 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   keep. After improvements.  Sandstein  05:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Humour

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

I tried to quietly redirect this page to Off-color humor, but I was reverted. I don't believe this page is appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If this topic exists then why delete it? There's enough information out there online to warrant an encyclopaedic article on this topic. The previous redirect tag put upon this article was just a sneaky attempt to obscure information on this topic and mask it with a general term which is the equivalent of redirecting the Holocaust article to the war crime article . Just because an article appears controversial doesn't warrant a deletion. If you don't like it then don't read it and certainly don't redirect it.--Chelios123 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What "information on this subject"? The current article is predominantly a joke book, with about 2 sentences of non-joke content.  You've written it cargo-cult style, throwing together a collection of jokes in the hopes that if there are enough examples in the article it will magically reach a critical mass and spontaneously become an encyclopaedic discussion of a subject.  You've even called for expansion of the joke book on the article's talk page. Prove that there's information to be had, and that there's really a properly documented encyclopaedia subject here, as you claim so far without showing any evidence at all.  Show where folklorists and others have documented a joke cycle for this.  Point directly to this "information out there" that you claim exists but only vagely wave a hand in the direction of.  Adhere to Deletion policy in AFD discussions, and write articles properly, working from reliable sources that actually discuss the purported subject, rather than lists of jokes that do not. Wikipedia articles are not collections of jokes and Wikipedia is not a joke book.  (And yes, I speak from a lot of experience, but I'm not going to do your work for you in this instance.  Wikipedia needs more than just one person who can write properly on these subjects, and experience should be a good teacher.)  Uncle G (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This article complies with all the rules and this article's format is consistent with other Wikipedia articles that discusses humour topics e.g maternal_insult. Like I said before if you don't like it THEN DON'T READ IT. Furthermore if you wish to critique this article then feel free to add your concerns on the articles talk page . In addition I've asked for more examples of 9/11 humour as the examples listed on this article are mainly Q&A jokes which is very tedious and I was hoping for more variety in the examples section. --Chelios123 (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You can take the advice of someone who knows what xe's talking about from years of rescuing articles like this, or you can foolishly continue in the same silly vein as what you've just written. Only the first will end up with anybody other than you opining to keep.  Write properly and stop making such specious arguments.  You need to learn about the subject from reliable sources that document it, and your immediate burden is to answer the questions that I asked, that you must answer to make a deletion-policy-compliant argument, proving your vague handwaved and so far wholly unsupported claims with source citations showing that you even have a real subject here in the first place.  You're supposed to be an encyclopaedia writer, not a joke collector.  Uncle G (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find more thorough documentation of this phenomenon and make it more than just a joke page. In other words: if this is something people have actually researched, it deserves an article. Otherwise, it's better off incorporated into the broader off-color humor or black comedy. Harej (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At least rename the article. "Humour" should not be capitalized. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 07:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is mainly just a list of "jokes." Yes, a few people have gotten into trouble for making these jokes in public, and that information should go on their individual pages. I don't see sufficient notability here to give this its own page, though.JoelWhy (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep I added a popular culture section to give examples of 9/11 humour with references. In addition I added an example of why 9/11 humour is taboo to enhance the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelios123 (talk • contribs) 2012-05-10T16:44:49‎
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Like perhaps every facet of 9/11, there has been a fair amount of serious writing about 9/11 humor.  In 2011, the book "A Decade of Dark Humor: How Comedy, Irony, and Satire Shaped Post-9/11 America" was released.  As the Amazon info states, the book "analyzes ways in which popular and visual culture used humor-in a variety of forms-to confront the attacks of September 11, 2001 and, more specifically, the aftermath. This interdisciplinary volume brings together scholars from four countries to discuss the impact of humor and irony on both media discourse and tangible political reality."  I'd need to look into this subject further to determine whether it merits a separate article, but even New York magazine has a 9/11 humor entry in its 9/11 encyclopedia.  If an article can exist, it will look different than how this looked when nominated.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, the more I look, there really is a TON of stuff out there about 9/11 humor. I would ditch the joke examples though (leave one in for a true example), and summarize the scholarly work and other commentary.--Milowent • hasspoken  21:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's not conflate scholarly work on 9/11 (even 9/11 and humor) with the page being discussed here. This page looks like it was written by someone in middle school looking for an excuse to post a bunch of tasteless jokes on Wikipedia. I am not voting for delete because I find it offensive, I'm voting to delete because this page isn't about humor + 9/11; it's just a list of anecdotes and crude jokes. I will be dollars to donuts that you won't find much in the way of scholarly works discussing what is listed in the Examples section (and, if I am mistaken, I eagerly await citations for the jokes -- citations to reliable/notable sources.) In any case, I will be glad to change my vote should someone provide a few citations and additions dealing with the scholarly issues. As it stands, I see virtually nothing worth salvaging here (although, I can see how a proper article may reference the Gottfried incident.)JoelWhy (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sure if you spend an hour or so on the article you could make it worthwhile. If this article is deleted, its only because on one cares to make it into the article it should be.--Milowent • hasspoken  12:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi.
 * I'm not really favoring deletion. The only reason this ended up here is that the page is a piece of shit (a giant copyright violation) and my redirect attempt was reverted.
 * Yes, there's plenty to write about regarding 9/11 Humour, but that's a tangential question to whether Wikipedia wants to cover the topic. It's a legitimate search term, but I think a redirect to Off-color humor or some simliar page (or even a redirect to a section) would be better than this page. And, broadly, I think a small section describing this phenomenon (and it's hardly unique to the September 11 attacks) would be sufficient. I'm not sure why more in-depth coverage (and examples, for Christ's sake) are really necessary. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The beginnings were abysmal, but there's hope for developing a substantial article out of this stub. I've culled the 'examples' as they will never be suitable content, and added a little from a research study on the topic. This is a notable topic, and the current stub doesn't breach any policies. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks Fences, that's definitely an improvements. I believe the 'popular culture' section can go as well. If there is something notable that occurred in such an episode which warrants serious discussion, it should be discussed. For example, if the incident on Family Guy prompted a huge backlash (I don't recall that it did, just as a hypothetical example) it may warrant a mention. But, just listing media appearances doesn't seem to serve any purpose, IMO.JoelWhy (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I added text from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Back_to_the_Pilot&oldid=491154653#Reception about the Family Guy episode. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a great addition, thanks! (Perhaps the first time I've ever read an article with a 'In popular culture' section that didn't seem like just a random collection of anecdotal accounts that never should have been added in the first place.)
 * Keep: Based on sorely needed improvements.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Based on the removal of juvenile list of "jokes" and significant improvements to the article.JoelWhy (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2012 (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.