Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawyer 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lawyer jokes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is unencyclopedic. Maybe a small paragraph in Lawyer regarding stereotypes, but a whole article is unnecessary. The article is original research, mainly humour-based and certainly biased in its tone regarding lawyers. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An unencyclopedic collection of original research. I don't even think a a small paragraph in Lawyer regarding stereotypes is needed, as we are an encyclopedia, and I'm sure there are more than enough websites on the Internet where people can find lawyer-related humor. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Awwwww. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete — The main issue is that there's nothing distinctive about lawyer jokes (as described in the article). As I pointed out in the article discussion, all the joke examples can be recast as "plumber jokes" with minor changes. The article is focused on the work of a single person, Marc Galanter, whereas there are many theories of humor available, including those of famous practitioners. Other theories cover a whole range of linguistic and social issues that aren't addressed in the article. Looking at Humor, Theories of humor, and Joke, there might be a use for one line about lawyer jokes (but not about Galanter's theory), in Jokes, in the Cycles section.


 * The article has been around for 2 1/2 years. In its early months, it seemed to be attempting to address the role of lawyer jokes in a broad historical context. Some interesting points were made, but unfortunately an appreciable part was original research. Next came a phase where the original research was cut out -- leaving very little in the article at all. Finally, Mikkalai decided to do what was termed "start major expansion" on April 20, 2007, which removed everything that had been done to that point. If this article is not deleted, then I'd like to see it rolled back to its state of original (but at least interesting) research, where many editors had contributed. (April 14, 2007). Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 21:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not encyclopedic -- not particularly funny, either. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR, fails WP:N and WP:V Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's worthwhile as a subject, and the article gives the subject the appropriate treatment for a description of humor. A few examples are shown, but mostly it's about why these jokes are popular, and it's sourced.  For whatever reason, people enjoy telling and retelling jokes about lawyers, and even buy books with such jokes.  I understand Alpha Ralpha's insight that these can be recast as plumber jokes; all I know is that I can go to a bookstore and find books of "lawyer jokes", and I've yet to see a book of plumber jokes.  Finally, "not particularly funny" is actually what we look for in a Wikipedia article of this type.  The rule that "Wikipedia is not a jokebook" means that this is not the place to post 200 jokes.  Humor is just as much a part of culture as literature, music or painting.  Mandsford (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes jokes funny doesn't change: slapstick, insults, taboo, punning etc. That a lawyer can be a target for slapstick, insult, using taboo language, punning is not much more than saying lawyers can be a target for jokes, as any profession can. The article as it stands is a social study about lawyers. (It could be retitled "Galanter's Theory of the Social Role of Lawyers in the 1980s".) It's one person's opinion on how lawyers are perceived. The article should, at least, revert to a discussion of all eras, and various joke theories.


 * However, even this may be barking up the wrong tree, which is why I voted to delete the article. Imagine the chaos of hundreds of articles: "British jokes", "Victorian British jokes", "Gay British jokes", "Gay British Victorian lawyer jokes", etc. The names might seem to impart significance, but in fact some jokes Shakespeare told in England 1600 are told in 21st century Siberia. The underlying theory is important, but changing wording, languages, professions, time periods doesn't change the underlying nature of why a joke is funny. Regards, Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Mandsford DollyD (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mandsford. But I only see one author as source. How is that "multiple?"There are additional reliable sources which discuss lawyer jokes (in addition to many collections of such jokes.) See, ,  ,   ,  , , as well as ""Lawyers, light bulbs and dead snakes: the lawyer joke as societal text." 42 UCLA Law Review 1069 (1995) cited at . Edison (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a jokebook. User529 (talk) 23:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with a new paragraph or section in the "Lawyer" article called "Stereotype" Tezkag72 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (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.