Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen keller in jokes

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 21:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Helen keller in jokes
Wikipedia is not a tasteless joke book. --Henrygb 22:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (1) Delete this article as completely and utterly unencyclopedic.
 * Delete. This could arguably be a speedy deletion candidate. User added similar (well, worse) garbage to Joseph Stalin. Everyking 22:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * And to Jesus. I guess this is what he does when he's not doing stand-up comedy. Everyking 22:29, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No, they are different users! --24.93.213.84 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) My vote was changed, this is unfair and I would like an arbitration because of vote-changing to delete this article.  I would also like to see Henrygb blocked.  This article fits wikipedia because there can be encyclopedic joke knowledge.  This knowledge can be thought of in the same way as knowledge about Persia or Abstract Algebra.  If this article is deleted then it is showing a sub-legal process to destroy information that might be helpful in thought, but has supposed deviance determined by a non-select group of wikiholics.  The changing of votes can be thought of as the same way.  There have been two of us who have had votes on us changed.  This is unfair, we still have a say.  If the opposition did not have a say, we would not have "Votes for Deletion". --24.93.213.84 02:18, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (1) Delete this article as completely and utterly unencyclopedic. (2) Nobody has ever been blocked just for nominating an article on VfD. There are no restrictions on what can and cannot be nominated here. (3) Calling people who frequent Wikipedia retards (as in your link) is flaming, which is not tolerated here. (4) A "sub-legal" process? Filtering the information in our articles is perfectly legal; there are no laws prohibiting us from doing with our website what we want, and we choose to include and exclude information based on what we collectively deem worthy to be in an encyclopedia. This process allows us to build an informative resource without being flooded with inane contributions that have no place in a work of reference (like this). &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 05:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Upholding Keep 

'' First off, this provides no reason. You are just saying it does not belong on Wikipedia through no argument. It is not a point. Also, encyclopedia is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as "Embracing many subjects; comprehensive." By embracing many subjects, it means none are excluded. Thus, by this definition, argument (1) is proven false. ''

'''(2) Nobody has ever been blocked just for nominating an article on VfD. There are no restrictions on what can and cannot be nominated here.'''

''My votes have been changed, you are assuming things that aren't true. Also, this is completely irrelevant to the arguments and voting''

(3) Calling people who frequent Wikipedia retards (as in your link) is flaming, which is not tolerated here.

'' Aside from being completely irrelevant, you should enjoy some humor in a conflicting situations. Americans make fun of themselves as stereotypes, so do some Wikiholics or Wikipedians. Even Helen Keller did. Also, this is not vandalism or "flaming," as you call it. In here we can make points and the points are even better if they are right or can't be disproven. Also, to use this as an argument is Argumentum ad Hominem, which is a logical fallacy. ''

''' (4) A "sub-legal" process? Filtering the information in our articles is perfectly legal; there are no laws prohibiting us from doing with our website what we want, and we choose to include and exclude information based on what we collectively deem worthy to be in an encyclopedia. This process allows us to build an informative resource without being flooded with inane contributions that have no place in a work of reference (like this). '''

'' Please note that referring to forensic or legal does not imply anything about American law. I was talking about a process, in the place of conflict, which is used to destroy information while upholding certain integrities and rules, which make a legal process. This is a partition in this legal process. Also, by the earlier definition of encyclopedic, this work is encyclopedic. Would you like me to look up informative to give you an idea of what it means? This article gives information, to Wikipedians. By your logic, I chose to include the article because it is based on what some deem to be worthy to be in an encyclopedia. Your logic is faulty, proving me right '' No hard feelings? --24.93.213.84 23:11, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Delete the article. Not notable enough for a whole article. Wikipedia is not a jokebook. However, this was a real category of joke that experienced a vogue circa, um, (counting on figures... age of kids... grade they were in when they came home with these kneeslappers...) the mid-1980s. Or maybe it's long been popular among fifth-graders. When I was in junior high school there was a fad for what were called "sick jokes" of this kind; I don't remember a Helen Keller subcategory but it probably evolved over time. I would love to think that all the delete votes are because these jokes have gone out of style and are no longer familiar. Do we have an article tracing the rise and fall of categories of jokes? We should, and this category should be mentioned. Do people still tell "elephant jokes?" (Q: How do you put six elephants in a Volkswagen? A. Three in front, three in back. Q: What did Tarzan say when he saw the elephants coming over the hill? A: "Here come the elephants over the hill.") Dpbsmith (talk) 01:50, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm really not going to nit-pick this issue since in the end, all the votes that count (yours doesn't count because you have not registered an account) have been to delete, and there is no way this article is being kept. For the record, no reason has to be given why something is unencyclopedic for a vote to count. It seems pretty obviously not appropriate for a reference work according to everyone else so I don't really feel the need to explain myself. Just because something counts as information doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Someone on here (I don't remember who exactly) once made the analogy of Wikipedia as an organism: we must take in food (information) and build the useful parts of that food into the bulk of the organism while excreting that which doesn't contribute to the overall health of the organism. In our case, this means deleting that information which doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. We get a lot of articles which are clearly factual in nature but the subject matter is not notable enough or appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia. This is not just some collection of every piece of information we can possibly find. No hard feelings, but I won't continue to debate this issue any further as VfD is cluttered up as it is and none of this is going to change the fate of the article. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 01:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete WLD 22:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete.Mikkalai 22:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 22:57, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Are we being censored now? This item is very encyclopedic, it embraces a subject usually not embraced.  What about taboo articles like condom or Jew, should we delete those?  That's very prejudice, Mr. Etitis. --24.93.213.84 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Spinboy 23:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Obvious Delete Lan3y - Talk 23:09, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Henrygb said. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 23:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Antandrus 23:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just not appropriate Bratsche 23:52, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unencyclopedic. CDC   (talk)  00:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, article as it stands is un-encyclopaedic. Megan1967 00:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete #3, vandalism. Wyss 00:47, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Article may be useful to youths as an example of uncouth harassment. Note: This is the 3rd time I've had to vote, as my first two were deleted. This is not fair. 20:14, 13 Feb 2005
 * Yes, he or she should have a vote, regardless of past vandalism to the page. Everyking 01:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. No anonymous user should have a vote. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 05:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? All people that know how to edit and use Wikipedia should be given "voting rights".  If not, then it would be considered elitist; and judging from your views on anarcho-communism in your user page, there should be no rigid class structure where it is not needed.  Also, he/she isn't really anonymous because everybody who can connect to the internet has an IP address. --24.93.213.84 23:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because of serious problems in the past with people attempting to use sockpuppets to "stuff the ballot box", we have established a fairly firm rule on this page that the votes of anonymous users and very new users are subject to steep discounting by the admin who finally makes the decision.  However, any facts you can add to the discussion are welcome and will be considered by the community.  To whoever has been blanking the anonymous votes, PLEASE STOP.  Trust that the deciding admin will investigate them and weight them appropriately.  Marking suspicious votes is a courtesy but erasing comments just confuses the discussion thread and incites unnecessary confrontation.  To the anon who was tampering with other people's votes, stop that too.  What you did is immediately obvious to anyone reviewing the edit history.  It seriously prejudices the case against you.  Rossami (talk) 03:36, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Allowing anonymous users to vote would create a few problems: firstly, an IP address does not identify a user uniquely -- some people's ISP does not give them the same IP every time they log onto the Internet, for example. Or a logged-in user could log out and get a second vote signed with their IP. Or somebody could vote five times at five of their friends' houses. Getting an account only takes a minute and is free. You don't even need to give out your name or email or anything, so in theory everybody is equally entitled to a vote, although it helps a lot to have a history of helpful contributions attributed to your account. While not strictly necessary, it lets people know you're not a sock puppet, plus it helps to have experience in Wikipedia community so you get a good feel for what is and isn't encyclopedic before voting on Votes for Deletion. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 00:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081;, please read Rossami's very considered statement (scroll down a bit) of what VfD is about. Anonymous users are explicitly allowed to participate in the discussion, and it is the discussion that is the point, not the votes. If the anonymous votes are suspicious, it is the admin's job to not consider them.
 * Delete as tasteless, unfunny and unencyclopedic. If someone wants to move this to the Jokebook, it'll have its day at the Wikibooks VfD. Szyslak 02:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Brim 05:20, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - tasteless jokes, probably also meant as derogatory - Skysmith 11:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shanes 23:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is probably someone just trolling, trying to see if Wikipedia will discredit itself by accepting it.  Wikipedia isn't a joke book.  Wikipedia is not a primary source for jokes or anything else.  But I agree with Dpbsmith that a history of fashions in jokes would be encyclopedic and "sick jokes" would merit some discussion, which might include some examples. --BM 01:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kaldari 01:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. Carrp | Talk 17:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic. Kjoonlee 03:38, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)
 * Delete - sick nonsense --Brookie 19:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; no potential to become encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not a jokebook. However, as I understand it, anonymous users do have the right to vote; no one should be removing their votes. If the user has done something questionable or not signed the vote, one may add a comment; or, if the user has added irrelevant material, like complex voting schemes, one may strike the extra material&mdash;but it should normally not be removed. Administrators traditionally give little importance to anonymous votes due to the problems mentioned above, but anonymous users still have a voice here. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 05:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.