Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of April Fool's Day 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 KEEP. postdlf (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

List of April Fool's Day jokes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No rhyme or reason to what's on the list and what isn't. There are several terribly-sourced entries on here — the game show section is sourced to YouTube videos or nothing at all. The content was created in wake of a content disupte on the April Fools' Day article regarding example-farming, but whether it's on its own or not, it's still examplefarming. There's absolutely no criterion for what should and shouldn't be on this list, meaning that it will only continue to swell bigger and bigger. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep No rhyme or reason to this nomination as it is our editing policy to improve weak articles, not to delete them. See Shameful behaviours for an example of a source which documents a list of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Confused, but keep My gut reaction instantly said to delete, but while I can think of lots of irrelevant reasons to do so, I can't think of an exact policy reason to delete.   As is, it appears to be a bit broad and full of referenced but not necessarily notable "jokes".  If all the entries in the list were notable enough for articles on Wikipedia, then it would appear to be fine. (ie: Write only memory, etc.).  In the end, I have to go with a keep only because it does serve the purpose of organizing lots of entries that can reasonably be grouped together.  Maintenance will be a nightmare, but as far as I know, that isn't a reason to delete an article.  In the end, the concept isn't the problem, but the article does need some serious trimming to only include particular "jokes" that themselves received significant 3rd party coverage (ie: might qualify for an article on Wikipedia, even if it doesn't have one). Regardless of how the article was started, in the end, April Fools Jokes are a very common thing, and a list of notable events would appear to be kosher with the guidelines here.     Dennis Brown (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a valid reason for deletion. If there are some items that aren't well-sourced, they can be fixed via normal editing.  If there is no clear criteria for inclusion, then that can be worked out through talk page discussion. I think that Colonel Warden hits the nail on the head that we should improve weak articles, not delete them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the confusion might be the article's title - perhaps "List of Famous April Fool's Day Jokes" would make more sense. Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with the article to warrant its removal. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the problem with adding Famous to the title is the same with adding Notable to the title, something we generally don't do here. It is assumed that the subject is notable, else they wouldn't be here.  I agree with you that something seems "wrong" with the title, just not sure how to fix it.  I also understand how Hammer might have nom'ed it, at first glance.  It took me half an hour of looking at it, thinking about it, changing my !vote from delete, to weak keep, to finally keep before submitting. Perhaps it is the "List of" that creates a knee jerk reaction, with the thought that it could eventually be 1/2 mile long, full of finger pointing on the talk page, with everyone wanting to keep their "pet" joke.  Still not a reason to delete, however.  Dennis Brown (talk) 00:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. I, too, was expecting to be saying delete, but this is a list with a defined criteria for inclusion (ie, pranks that happened on April Fools' Day). If there are examples on there that are unsourceable, remove them, if they can be referenced, keep 'em in. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has a narrowly defined criteria, and referencing can keep the list managable.  -- Jayron  32  23:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Meh, keep though I have much sympathy with the nomination of articles like this. It can be referenced and/or trimmed, and it keeps this dross off the main article. --John (talk) 00:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:IINFO. Just because all of this is verified doesn't mean that it is encyclopedic. There is no strong criteria for inclusion within the list so anything can appear here if it has been verified as an April Fools Prank. A completed list would have no end and would be useless as a point of reference. I would also oppose a merge back to the main article, since this is inappropriate there as well as here. What we should do is delete this article and summarise the contents within the main article without going into meaningless detail.  Them  From  Space  00:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In what way is a "list of April Fool's Day jokes" indiscriminate? Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The list is indiscriminate because it allows any verified April Fools Day joke to be included, regardless of its significance. A completed list under this criteria would have hundreds of entries, mostly insignificant.  A mass-listing such as this is no substitute for a properly summarised section in the main article.  Them  From  Space  06:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if every thing in the list was verified by significant coverage by reliable sources, and was an April Fools Day joke, then not only would it NOT be indiscriminate, but each would be eligible for their own article. I had the same fear you did at first, but the fear is a fear of how to manage the article, which has never been considered a reason to delete any article.  I don't pretend that it will ever be complete (again, not a reason to delete), and it may get large (again, not a reason to delete) but it seems that it is a narrow focus, and the key is deleting listings that aren't themselves verifiable. Dennis Brown (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Well-sourced, finite and discrete topic, no problems that can't be fixed by normal editing. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I see entries that link to a Wikipedia article about them, and others that have references so could surely have their own articles created if anyone wants to take the time and bother. If you have a problem with the article, use its talk page, and discuss any entries you see as a problem.  You don't destroy valid content with a mass article destruction, because some of the entries might not belong there.   D r e a m Focus  04:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There are lots of "List of ..." articles on Wikipedia that are pointless, however this is one of the few that are worthy of retaining. Mtking (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge back to April Fools' Day. No valid reason for deletion. The article is useful because it contains information about the famous April Fools' Day's jokes and most of the content appear to be verified. If a few more citations added and the article will be OK. LikakiPhotos (talk) 08:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of notable, reliably sourced incidents on this list, and AfD is not intended for article clean-up. —Torchiest talkedits 16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The subject is narrow in scope, as Dennis Brown notes, and thus isn't the indiscriminate list that it could be. Obviously, cleanup is necessary, as noted by others above. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * keep Reasonable list. Some items may not be well-sourced enough but that's not a reason to delete the list. Many are reliably sourced and the topic is narrowly defined. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep. This could use a good WP:LAUNDRY cleaning to get rid of the non-notable examples.  There certainly isn't a need for the list to contain an example of every single April Fool's Day prank, but notable pranks seem worthwhile.  Perhaps it should also be renamed to "List of notable April Fool's Day jokes" or something similar.  Though, since this is a list, I lack much of the special understanding about list pages to know for sure if it belongs here.  Can someone point me to the list-specific policies?  --Tathar (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2011 (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.