Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish haiku


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Jewish haiku

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Fails GNG. Article appears to cover two unrelated topics: a book of Jewish jokes written in 17-syllable form, and Torah scripture expressed in English in 17-syllable format, as exemplified in a blog. Neither the jokes nor the blog content are actually haiku since (A) they omit haiku's essential content - kigo and kire, and (B) haiku in English generally eschew the 17-syllable form. The subject has not received any extensive coverage in third-party RS. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 23:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether it's real haiku or not isn't really relevant for the article's keepability. (Certainly when I was in school in the U.S. the only requirement for haiku that we were taught was the 5/7/5 structure; we weren't taught anything about kigo and kire, and we weren't allowed to deviate from the 17-syllable form.) But if it's true that "Jewish haiku" is represented only by two works that don't have any connection to each other -- if there's no independent coverage of the genre -- then the topic probably isn't notable and the article should be deleted. Angr (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. The following sentence is irrelevant to the question of the subject's notability: "Neither the jokes nor the blog content are actually haiku since (A) they omit haiku's essential content - kigo and kire, and (B) haiku in English generally eschew the 17-syllable form." --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. gråb whåt you cån (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | confess _ 15:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Haiku have become a trope of English parody literature and there surely is no possible innate notability in two random examples thereof. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Could merge some to David M. Bader although I'm not sure if he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Not even close to meeting WP:GNG. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the haiku. I laughed so much it hurt me. Are they notable? Bearian (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to be the first person here to proposes that we KEEP this article - it could have some value. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Per WP:AFD "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." and "If you wish for an article to be kept, you can ... search out reliable sources, and refute the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines..." --gråb whåt you cån (talk) 20:12, 11 July 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.