Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How to keep an idiot busy for hours

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep or no consensus. Woohookitty 04:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

How to keep an idiot busy for hours
non-notable Fito 19:51, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely void of encyclopedic too. / Peter Isotalo 21:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia should avoid self-reference. :P Fernando Rizo T/C 22:09, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, extremely well-known type of joke. Kappa 22:30, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not informative, and not something users are even remotely likely to be looking for in an encyclopedia. | Keithlaw 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete cannot discern encyclopedic value. Sliggy 23:26, September 11, 2005 (UTC) 81.131.76.156 00:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC) (Oops). I'd delete both 'keep an idiot' and 'keep a genius' articles, but I want to find an inflatable dartboard first. Sliggy 01:02, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Kappa, but delete annoying How to keep a genius busy for hours. Sdedeo 00:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge How to keep a genius busy for hours into it. -Apyule 05:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge ..genius.. into this, extremely well known and very clearly written piece of our culture's humour. Alf melmac 08:37, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge per apyule and Alf. Punkmorten 09:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, perfectly good stub on a very well known meme. I'd support merging the other article in too. sjorford #£@%&$?!  10:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work. Now we'll have to keep articles about every half-assed generalized joke ever to grace the Internet. Shame on you, guys. / Peter Isotalo 16:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For heaven's sake, this is much more than an internet joke - I read this in books when I was a kid, way before the internet was all that. sjorford #£@%&$?!  19:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's not confined to the Internet. It's a joke, and jokes aren't encyclopedic in the leas. I don't even see why we should have to explain this. Most of our readers are going to take us less seriously if seeing this. You're mocking our standards of quality by keeping these kinds of pseudo-articles. / Peter Isotalo 06:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC) /
 * I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on this. A major class of jokes has a good claim on being encyclopedic.  Also, I think that you are starting to come way to close to some personal attacks there. --Apyule 08:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything there that is even a little close to a personal attack. Peter expressed his viewpoint without any personal reference to Sjorford. If you disagree with Peter's views, then criticize the substance of his argument, not its style. | Keithlaw 12:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, the specific comments that I don't think are appropriate are "Shame on you" and "You're mocking our standards". --Apyule 13:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jokes can be encyclopedic. This one is, and fits in very well alongside the rest of Category:Jokes. (Oh, and just to set everyone's mind at rest, I don't see any "personal attacks" (surely the most overused phrase...) either, but I will say this: Peter, what is this "you" and "we"? I'm not an interloper here, we're all working to build the same encyclopedia.) sjorford #£@%&$?!  13:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, extremely well-known type of joke. Not at all encyclopedic.  Tell you what, let's give up on compiling verifiable facts and just rename this to Jokepedia.  I bet we'd have more fun.  I bet we'd make this project useless as a reference work.  Barno 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge How to keep a genius busy for hours into it. Failing that, transwiki to Wikibooks and put it into the Jokebook (I assume there is one). Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 02:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are the kinds of articles that usually atrract people to Wikipedia -- they're of quality about subjects you'll never find anywhere else. Merging "genius" into it seems fine, too, as suggested above. --Jacqui M Schedler 22:51, 20 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.